Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

OXFORDSHIRE BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Amendments agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will agree to meet the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to discuss King Hussein's middle east peace initiative.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We support King Hussein's courageous initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had a useful discussion with the King on 19 July. We are examining with him how best we can encourage the current movement towards peace negotiations. We have also welcomed the Israeli Prime Minister's proposals of 10 June as a useful contribution to narrowing the gap between the parties.

Ms. Short: The Secretary of State must be aware that there is now a real danger that that initiative will run out of steam, and the Palastinian people will conclude that there is no way in which diplomacy will bring them a just solution. That is a grave danger for the situation in the middle east. Could not the British Government have a little more courage and, instead of whispering in the ear of the American Government, stand up publicly and agree to meet the delegation in order to move the whole initiative forward?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of keeping the movement towards peace moving in that direction. It is wrong to cast any judgment on our lack of courage or insight. We are looking continually at all the possible moves that we can make to help the process forward. The key point is that what is necessarily a step-by-step approach is kept moving in the right direction and that each step that we take will help and not hinder that process.

Mr. Walters: In order to assist King Hussein in his peace efforts, would it not be helpful for Her Majesty's Government to announce their willingness to receive the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation in advance of the United States doing so? Should we not appear to be one step ahead of the Americans in this matter, and not one step behind?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to judge these matters carefully. 'We shall certainly be making a judgment in response to such suggestions in the way that we judge, after consultation with the King, to be most likely to take the process forward.

Mr. Janner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has welcomed the statement by Prime Minister Peres, who I am sure he will agree is a man of peace. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that it is the expressed view of Prime Minister Peres that, far from the Hussein initiative hastening the way to peace, it will stand in the way of direct negotiations between the parties, which provide the best hope for a true solution to a very difficult problem?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Despite my overwhelming respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman's accuracy and my awareness of his concern in the matter, I am not sure that he accurately summarises what Prime Minister Peres said. The important thing is to take into account how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise in the matter and to make sure that progress is being maintained in the direction and with the objective of direct and effective negotiations in the cause of peace.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate King Hussein on his sincere efforts to achieve peace in the middle east? Will he do his utmost to swing the moderate Arab states behind King Hussein and secure appropriate representation on the delegation? In all the circumstances, will he take it on board that it is the wish of many right hon. and hon. Members that he meets the delegation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point in the last part of my hon. Friend's question and the extent to which it is supported. As he says, it is right to encourage Palestinians who are committed to working for peace, all of those moderate leaders in the Arab world who are committed to the same cause, and all those in Israel as well.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that he does nothing to jeopardise Mr. Richard Murphy's American diplomatic initiative and that any deputation that is received here contains names that are also acceptable to the Americans?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Each question that is asked on this matter shows the many factors that one must keep in mind and the many components that could be constructive that one must take care not to jeopardise. I have well in mind the points that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Anderson: This is a courageous initiative which is clearly at a delicate stage. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government have no objection in principle to meeting the joint delegation? Will he also confirm that the Government believe that these moves towards a partial settlement on the lines of Camp David


are more likely to be productive than is a generalised peace conference, and that there are real signs of progress, especially as the Soviets seem more willing to recognise the existence of the state of Israel?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One cannot be sure about the validity of the hon. Gentleman's last point. He is right to call attention to the hazards, as he put it, of a generalised peace conference, certainly at this stage. The important thing is to take steps that are necessary and right at each stage to encourage moderate leadership on both sides to come closer together and, eventually, to negotiations.

Mozambique

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Mozambique.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): We maintain friendly relations with the Government of Mozambique. This is happily demonstrated by the current visit to this country by the Mozambican Foreign Minister, Dr. Chissano, as our guest.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm newspaper reports that Britain is to train and equip Mozambican army officers and NCOs? Does not the Machel regime remain Marxist, denying human rights and fundamental freedoms, and is it not coming under increasing pressure from anti-Marxist rebels? Are we convinced that we are supporting the right side?

Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. President Machel has made clear his wish to develop relations with Western countries. We believe that we should respond positively. It is against that background that, with the full agreement of the Zimbabwe Government, we have offered to expand the British military advisory and training team in Zimbabwe to train officers and NCOs of the Mozambican army.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am glad to hear that we have friendly relations with the Mozambique Government. Does the Minister agree that they are extremely exposed because of their relationship with South Africa? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is support for the Mozambique Government and their relationship with South Africa, bearing in mind the emergency in South Africa? Does he agree that it is important that we show that we have the interests of the Mozambique Government and their independence at heart, despite the problems that must arise from the emergency in South Africa?

Mr. Renton: We have the interests of Mozambique's development at heart. Until now, South Africa has stuck by the Nkomati accord and has recently not given official support to Renamo. That has been acknowledged in Mozambique. We have an interest in the external implications of the current insecurity in Mozambique. That is one reason why we have taken the steps that I have just announced.

Sir Peter Blaker: What are the Mozambique Government's views on the proposal to impose economic sanctions on South Africa?

Mr. Renton: I am not aware that the Mozambique Government have yet expressed any view on that subject.

United States of America

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of the United States of America; and what subjects were discussed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I last did so when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met Vice-President George Bush during his visit to London from 2 to 3 July. The principal topics discussed were international terrorism, East-West trade, East-West relations and international trade issues.

Mr. Canavan: What discussions or recent communications have there been between the British and American Governments about possible concerted action by both Governments to reject the legitimate calls for economic sanctions against South Africa? Is it not absolutely deplorable that once more the British Government are deserting our true friends in the Commonwealth in order to kowtow to Ronald Reagan in support of the continuance of economic relations which in effect will bolster the evil apartheid regime which is directly responsible for the recent bloodshed and other atrocities during the current emergency in South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning apartheid wholeheartedly and without qualification, but at that point I must part company from his insight into international affairs. I cannot believe that he seriously imagines that our view about the wisdom of economic sanctions is dictated by a determination to kowtow to President Reagan or to anybody else. We wish progress to be made in order to secure the removal of apartheid, but we believe that the imposition of economic sanctions would not help in that direction but would have the contrary effect.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States Government propose to impose curbs on steel imports from 1 August 1985? Is he also aware that imports from the European Community into the United States are the result of rigidities and inefficiencies in the steel manufacturing sector in the United States? Is it not unfair that because high American interest rates fund their massive budget deficit, which provides an opening for the import of European steel into their market, they should propose to block such imports? What action will my right hon. and learned Friend take about this and what representations will he make to his opposite number in the United States Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to steel imports as one of the areas where the United States is threatening to take restrictive action if agreement cannot be reached with the European Community. We believe that the United States should refrain from taking unilateral action in such areas. It is important for such disagreements to be handled bilaterally between the European Community and the United States. The exchange rate of the dollar, to which the size of the United States federal deficit makes a significant contribution, is an important factor.

Mr. Deakins: Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with Vice-President Bush how to cope with the growing volume of popular pressure in both the United States and Britain for the imposition of some form of economic sanctions on


South Africa? If so, what conclusions did they reach as representatives of two Governments who, in this sense, are beleaguered minorities in their own countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself in judging the scale of pressure for action of that kind in this country. However, on this issue the view of the United States is the same as our own: that although we profoundly detest and deplore apartheid and all its manifestations, we do not believe that the imposition of economic sanctions would be helpful either in helping to remove apartheid or in promoting the interests of the people who are most adversely affected by it.

Sir John Farr: Since most hon. Members agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that economic sanctions against South Africa would be unhelpful and unrewarding, will he assure the House that he took the opportunity when he met Vice-President Bush to express very clearly Her Majesty's Government's views?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The two Governments are in constant touch with each other on this topic. In the context of the United Nations and of bilateral contacts we have no doubt about each other's views.

Mr. George Robertson: On the subject of contacts with the American Government, what precisely is the function of the current visit to America by the Secretary of State for Defence? Why is he going round the United States trying to lick up the gravy of the star wars programme when the Foreign Secretary and all his European counterparts seemed openly to express widespread doubts about the strategic defence initiative?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the reports that the United States Congress has already been notified that a phased array radar system is to be installed at Fylingdales in Yorkshire, along similar lines to the much criticised phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk in the Soviet Union?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is extending his range of curiosity widely this afternoon——

Mr. Robertson: Why not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always here to satisfy, as far as I can. Let me take the hon. Gentleman's second point first. Any decisions to modernise existing radar establishments, including the one at Fylingdales, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and would be undertaken in any event in compliance with existing treaty obligations.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, all the countries of the Western European Union have commissioned the Council to co-ordinate their reactions to the American invitation to participate in SDI research — a research programme which most members of the WEU support. The visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to Washington, which is now over—he returned last night — was designed to give practical impetus to the exploration of ways in which British companies can participate in the research programme.

USSR (Postal Services)

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the non-delivery of mail to individuals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in breach of the Universal Postal Convention was raised by the United Kingdom delegation

during the discussions on human rights at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Ottawa in May; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The United Kingdom delegation to the Ottawa meeting made clear our very real concern about the Soviet practice of interfering with private mail sent from abroad.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that the host of communications sent recently from the United Kingdom to the USSR which were seized by the Soviet postal authorities included inoffensive items such as wedding invitations and birthday cards? Will the Minister undertake to communicate with his opposite number in the USSR to discover which items are prohibited by the Soviet postal authorities, so that those who send communications to their friends in that country can be informed?

Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's longstanding interest in this problem. As I said, the general subject was raised forcefully at the Ottawa meeting on human rights. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Minister of State — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—arrives in Moscow today. He told me before his departure that he intends to raise this general issue during his visit.

Soviet Foreign Minister

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the new Soviet Foreign Minister.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to meet the new Soviet Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 August during the meeting commemorating the 10th anniversary of the signature of the Helsinki final act.

Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the main prerequisite for agreement on arms control is that there should be confidence between East and West? Will he use that meeting as an opportunity to stress the British Government's commitment to increasing confidence?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend that the achievement of success in arms control negotiations could depend substantially on the creation of confidence on both sides. I shall certainly do my best to stress that. It is one reason why we welcome the prospect of contact at the highest level in the forthcoming summit meeting between the President of the United States and Mr. Gorbachev.

Dr. Owen: Before that meeting with the new Soviet Foreign Minister, does the Foreign Secretary think it appropriate to restart the Anglo-Soviet health agreement, which was signed in 1975 but suspended in 1979? The suspension has caused much friction between the two countries. Would not such a gesture be appropriate to commemorate the signing of the Helsinki final act?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall reconsider the matter in the light of the cogent arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot promise him that my consideration will be concluded in time for the meeting next week.

Mr. Lawrence: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the new Soviet Foreign Minister, will he say


that, although the overseas English language broadcasts of the BBC are not usually jammed, its Russian service broadcasts are always jammed, and that that is in breach of the international telecommunications convention—another international undertaking which the Soviets have signed but do not honour?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Freedom of broadcasting is a matter that frequently arises at meetings of this kind, and it will be relevant to the proceedings at Helsinki next week. My hon. and learned Friend will find that there is a question directed specifically to this subject to be answered later today.

Mr. Boyes: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Soviet Foreign Minister, will he tell him that the British Government are against the deployment of chemical weapons in Europe by any NATO state, and that it would be helpful if the Soviet Union would reduce dramatically its stocks of chemical weapons and produce no further stocks? Will he also say that the British Government would guarantee, on the removal of all Soviet stocks, that they would be opposed to the deployment of any chemical weapons in Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the massive stocks of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union and the importance of their removal if we are to secure progress towards a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. The United Kingdom has neither manufactured nor stocked chemical weapons for many years. We shall continue to press the Soviet Union, at Helsinki and elsewhere, for a worldwide ban on chemical weapons.

Mr. Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to press upon the Soviet Union leadership how welcome it would be if, in a co-operative and uncompetitive spirit, it would increase its contribution to solving the problems of famine and development in the Third world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall take that opportunity. I drew attention to that point in a speech yesterday, noting the significant fact that, in the past six months, India has contributed 10 times as much to food aid as the Soviet Union.

Mr. Healey: Will the proposed visit of Mr. Gromyko to Britain still take place? If not, will it be replaced by a visit from Mr. Shevardnadze, his successor as Foreign Secretary? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Soviet Foreign Minister in Helsinki, will he suggest that the Soviet Union should impose a ban on all tests of components or subcomponents of systems that could be used in space, including the Soviet anti-satellite system?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. On his point about a visit from Mr. Shevardnadze in place of Mr. Gromyko — whom we must congratulate on his appointment to President — the invitation previously extended to Mr. Gromyko has been re-extended to Mr. Shevardnadze and I hope that it will be accepted.

Argentina

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will

make a statement about the prospects for Anglo-Argentine relations in the light of Her Majesty's Government's decision to re-open trade with Argentina.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have repeatedly made it plain that we seek more normal relations with Argentina, while continuing to fulfil our commitments to the Falkland Islanders. By lifting restrictions on imports from Argentina we have taken a practical step of benefit to both sides, as we have done on a number of occasions since 1982. But the restoration of more normal relations requires as well a constructive approach from Argentina, which it has so far declined to adopt.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: While upholding British sovereignty over the Falklands, does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that Her Majesty's Government are always ready to welcome Argentine co-operation in the defence and development of the region? Meanwhile, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stop pussyfooting and procrastinating about fisheries protection through a mistaken fear of certain powers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pussyfooting or procrastinating about the prospect of effective control over fisheries in the Falkland Islands region. My hon. Friend must understand that we want to achieve an effective fisheries regime, which is much more likely to be effective if we can achieve it on a multilateral basis. That is why we are working actively, under my supervision, to make progress in that direction.

Mr. Dalyell: What advice did the right hon. and learned Gentleman get in Brasilia?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We had a useful and constructive exchange of views on a large number of matters. —[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If all questions were as brief as that, we should get on very rapidly.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in future dealings with Argentina he will in no way be dismayed by its very disappointing reply to his imaginative gesture in lifting trade restrictions? Will he explain that the renewal of diplomatic relations is more in Argentina's interests than it is in ours?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: From as long ago as September 1982, when I first proposed and negotiated the withdrawal of financial restrictions between the two countries—an agreement which has yet to be fully implemented by Argentina—I have been exercising a patient pursuit of good reason and sense from the Government of that country.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the President of Argentina had a very distinguished record in opposing the previous regime? Will he also accept that initiatives and good will on both sides could lead to a lasting agreement on all outstanding issues that would be the envy of diplomats throughout the world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly recognise the position adopted by the President of Argentina and the part that he has played in restoring democratic government to that country. That is why I am disappointed by the reluctance of his Government to respond even to the gesture we made


a couple of weeks ago. We would welcome any signs of willingness to move step by step in the direction of more constructive relations.

Mr. Robert Banks: In relation to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, can he say whether he has any objection to the landing of civilian aircraft from Argentina at the new airport at Port Stanley?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The management of that airport is a matter upon which one would need to consider each proposal as it was put.

Mr. Hardy: May I return to the question of fisheries? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is not a great deal of time before irreparable harm will be inflicted upon the fishery resources of the Falkland waters? What evidence can he give the House that the Foreign Office has taken any helpful action, and when shall we see the urgent initiatives that are necessary?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the seriousness with which hon. Members on all sides of the House are looking for a solution to the matter of fisheries raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). We need to reach a conclusion that will be effective, durable and respected. We are much more likely to achieve that on a multilateral basis, and that is why we are working towards that end. If we wish to preserve the fish about which the hon. Member is concerned, we must secure ageement on as wide an international basis as possible.

Mr. Foulkes: I hope that it is in order for me to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on this small step forward, even with the unfortunate caveat on sovereignty. Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the oil exploration already under way by Firstland? He is aware of the chaos over fishing. Will he now consider some agreement with Argentina on the development of oil resources for our mutual benefit? Will he confirm that Argentina is involved in the multilateral discussions on fisheries, and that we can expect an agreement soon, before all the fish have gone from the South Atlantic?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the action upon which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was kind enough to congratulate me indicates our disposition to find any way we can to improve our co-operative relationship with the Government of Argentina. That is what we are seeking to do in relation to fish, and we will look at any proposals in relation to anything else. Many people in Argentina understand that action of a multilateral kind to manage and conserve fish in the South Atlantic would be in everybody's interests.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I welcome the reopening of trade with Argentina. How far does the Secretary of State believe it is significant to the stability of the democratic, civilian regime in Argentina to have a discussion of sovereignty on the agenda? If he does believe that it is important, what is he doing about it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A discussion about sovereignty cannot be on the agenda. For that reason, we have been seeking to open up prospects of discussion on the wide range of topics that I have identified.

European Community (Intergovernmental Conference)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be submitting any proposals to the forthcoming European Economic Community intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have already put forward a number of practical proposals. They remain valid. I expect specific proposals from other member states to be put forward as a basis for discussion at the conference. In the light of that discussion we shall consider whether to put forward any further ideas ourselves.

Mr. Deakins: Does the Foreign Secretary support the Prime Minister's view, expressed recently in the House, that amendments to the treaty of Rome are not required?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The view that we took when we went to the meeting in Milan was that it was possible to achieve the necessary progress on the basis of our proposals, without treaty amendment. As the Prime Minister said in her statement to the House after the Milan summit,
We must go to that…conference and consider what is put before us.

Mr. Dykes: Now that we appear to be more enthusiastic about the conference, will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that we shall attend with positive and enthusiastic proposals? If a good number of the founding member states want to make some changes to the treaty—without there being too many—would it be possible for us to accept that with good grace and common sense?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Good God, no.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The important thing, which is well known to my hon. Friend, is that we must achieve a conclusion of the agenda before us as quickly as possible in order to promote effective common action and further progress within the Community. We shall be approaching the whole agenda at the intergovernmental conference with a view to concluding those matters and achieving as much progress as we can.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Foreign Secretary impress on his colleagues that Community aid to Turkey should depend on that country's return to democracy? Will he bring to their attention the new report by Amnesty International showing that torture of political prisoners in Turkey is systematic and widespread and that nothing has changed in that country since the beginning of this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am able to challenge the last part of the hon. Lady's question forthwith, because the parts of Turkey subject to martial law have been substantially reduced since the beginning of this year. That is indicative of the progress that we wish to see towards the restoration of full democracy in Turkey, which is important.

Mr. Budgen: I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the robust and patriotic words of the Prime Minister who said on her return from Milan, "I do not think there is any need for any amendment to the treaty." Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the Government rule out any proposals for amendment to the treaty that might come forward at the intergovernmental conference in the autumn?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I remind my hon. Friend of the equally robust and patriotic words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said:
We must go to that…conference and consider what is put before us."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 191.]
It would be foolish to go to such a conference with preconceived ideas. Our objective, in the interests of the economic policy and politics of this country, must be to secure effective agreement so that the Community can make the sort of progress that we all want to see achieved.

Mr. George Robertson: Now that the Foreign Secretary has taken to fudging up everything that the Prime Minister has said in her robust comments, will he tell the House what he will do at the intergovernmental conference to protect this country from changes in the voting procedures which, even without a change in the treaty, could easily lead to the elimination of the Luxembourg compromise? Will he resist any procedural change that will make costly tax harmonisation possible, and will he recognise and admit to the House that any intergovernmental conference that has no agenda, so little time for preparation and nobody agreeing on what the eventual outcome will be, is a recipe for misunderstanding, disillusionment and disenchantment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a capacity which astonishes even me for casting gloom and doubt on every sensible proposal before the House. He must recognise the importance of going to the conference with a view to achieving effective progress in a direction that is important for this country. That is how we approach all proposals in the Community. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was agreed at the Milan conference that proposals for tax harmonisation should be remitted to Finance Ministers for further consideration, because they cause equal doubt and difficulty to a number of member states. As for the Luxembourg compromise, the hon. Gentleman will also accept that many states recognise and emphasise what the Community recognises, that it is not possible in the Community to disregard or overrule the vital national interests of any country. That having been said, it is of vital national interest for the Community to achieve co-ordination and unity on the progress that is necessary.

European Community (Foreign Policy)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Community foreign policy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The United Kingdom put forward at the Milan European Council ideas for a binding agreement on European political co-operation. This would include the formalisation of the commitment to consult, establishment of a small secretariat and closer cooperation on security. These ideas, together with others, will now be on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that greater co-operation in foreign affairs among Community countries is a major objective of British Government policy, and that such co-operation is very much in the interests of this country and the other countries of western Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It was for that reason we put forward the proposals that we did at the Milan conference for an agreement on political co-operation.

Mr. Boyes: If Foreign Ministers ever work closer together on a common policy, and whether they do or not, will the Foreign Secretary make it absolutely clear that he is against torture? Will he make it absolutely clear that he is against torture in Turkey—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns European foreign policy.

Mr. Boyes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Foreign Secretary, as one of the people making that common policy, that the common policy must be to oppose torture wherever it is, particularly systematic and widespread torture in Turkey.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question ranges, as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, a long way beyond that on the Order Paper, but I have no difficulty in assuring the hon. Gentleman that of course the policies of Her Majesty's Government are opposed to torture.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary do all in his power to make sure that a European foreign policy does not become an anti-American foreign policy? Is he aware of the huge resentment in the United States about the indiscriminate dumping of steel from state-subsidised companies in Europe and about the disruption of world food markets, again by indiscriminate, subsidised dumping of food surpluses?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend refers to the other side of the coin that we discussed a moment ago. The fact is that on both sides of the Atlantic there is a problem to be tackled over the disposal of steel exports in today's world economic conditions. It is equally the case that American agricultural policy involves, in his words, dumping agricultural exports on the world market at subsidised prices. It is precisely because we need to resolve conflicts of that kind sensibly that we need to tackle them, and can benefit so much from tackling them, within the European Community rather than on our own.

South Africa

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of British relations with South Africa.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are seriously concerned at the deterioration of the internal situation in South Africa and especially the imposition of a state of emergency. This underlines the urgent need for the rapid opening of a dialogue between the present South African Government and the genuine representatives of the non-white community. These grave developments inevitably have an effect on our bilateral relations.

Mr. Cartwright: Since the South African authorities clearly take little or no notice of representations from Her Majesty's Government, will the Foreign Secretary now open negotiations with our European partners with a view to establishing an EEC-wide ban on new investment in South Africa? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that such


a policy would be neither disinvestment nor disengagement, but a worthwhile and effective way of securing the sort of changes that we all want to see in South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the value of approaching these questions in consultation with our partners in the European Community, which is why we issued the statement that we did on behalf of all the Foreign Ministers on Monday. He has not succeeded in persuading me that the proposal that he has in mind would be of value.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, faced with the increasing tide of black violence in South Africa, which includes murder, torture and alleged cannibalism, the South African Government had no choice but to bring in these emergency powers to protect innocent black lives? Will he also accept that the intervention of EC Foreign Ministers and of well-meaning Anglican bishops does nothing to encourage South Africa towards peaceful change?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand that Governments of all sorts must consider what action is necessary to check violence and disorder. However, I do not find it easy to conclude that the measures taken by the South African Government at the weekend represent the best way of achieving the sort of progress that we want in South Africa. Nor is it right to conclude that we should refrain from commenting and pronouncing upon the aspects of the South African regime which we believe are unhelpful to the future of all people of that country.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the disgraceful remarks of apologists for South Africa that we have just heard, are not the present events in South Africa the inevitable result of the policies that have been pursued in that country since 1948? When will its rulers recognise that while the majority of people in that country are denied political and human rights there will never be peace? Is it the Foreign Secretary's intention to recall the British ambassador? Would that not be the most appropriate step to take at this time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have long made clear our view that the policy of apartheid on which the South African Government rest their case is misconceived, unjust, inappropriate and indefensible. Having said that, we think that the least helpful thing that we could do would be to withdraw our ambassador. One reason why we have an ambassador in post is precisely so that we can make clear to the South African Government the views of this Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a statement on this matter later. I shall allow a short run of questions, but those who are fortunate enough to catch my eye now may not find it so easy later.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that there is to be a statement.

Mr. Speaker: I have it wrong, and I apologise.

Sir Peter Blaker: While the actions of the South African Government are very much to be deplored, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the so-called front-line states of central and southern Africa are

trading vigorously with South Africa? Does he know of any proposal from any of those countries to impose economic sanctions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that a number of the front-line states have said that their relationship with South Africa would prevent them from complying with any recommendation for economic sanctions.

Mr. Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary make it quite clear to the South African Government that our Government believe that an imaginative and humanitarian gesture, such as the release of Nelson Mandela, would do far more to calm the position in South Africa than the introduction of all the instruments of oppression that have occurred during the last few days?
If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view, what concrete steps is he prepared to take other than spilling out the adjectives of condemnation on South Africa? Will he take a lead from the American Congress and at least consider selective sanctions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I and the Government have made it plain on many occasions that the South African Government need to take bold action to restore the possibility of dialogue, including the step mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. That does not lead me to conclude that they are likely to be encouraged in that direction by the imposition of sanctions. I well understand why those who deplore the policies of the South African Government as much as I do would like to see something being done. It is only after the most careful judgment that we have reached the plain conclusion that sanctions are likely to have the opposite effect to that desired.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it should be no part of British Government policy, nor would it be in British interests, to add fuel to any fire in South Africa? Will he continue to resist the siren voices of those who suggest that disinvestment would be in the interests of faster progress? That would surely be ineffective, unworkable and least in the interests of those whom it was designed to assist.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It was very well put by Mrs. Helen Suzman in Europe the other day, when she said:
Such action in fact blunts the only weapon that Blacks have, or are in the process of acquiring—the economic muscle that accompanies upward mobility on the economic ladder by virtue of greater skills and increased consumer power.

Mr. Robert Hughes: While major differences remain between some of us and the Secretary of State, will he accept that many of us warmly endorse his call for bold steps to be taken by South Africa, such as the ending of detention, the release of people detained without trial and the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela? Having said that, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why his speech yesterday was bereft of even the most timid proposal to try to make South Africa implement steps to carry out the policies that he has apparently vigorously demanded?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because after careful consideration, despite the unanimity of views about objectives, we share the view expressed, for example, by Mr. Alan Paton, that those who would pay most grievously for disinvestment would be the black workers in South Africa.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to continue to pay attention to the wisdom of people such as Alan Paton and Helen Suzman, both of whom are friends of mine, the chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, and Chief Buthelezi, among many others, who have given a thorough, far-reaching and impressive analysis of the reasons why disinvestment would be a disastrous course of action. If Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Ministers of the Ten are now to feel both obliged and entitled to interfere in the domestic affairs of another state, may I ask on what grounds we do not feel both entitled and obliged to proscribe to the Indian Government what they should do about civil violence in Ahmedabad, to the Singhalese Government what they should do about the civil and racial violence in Ceylon, and to many others? Are we not creating the most dangerous precedent?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend overlooks a crucial central fact, which is the extent to which the apartheid regime in South Africa is uniquely built on foundations of racial discrimination.

Mr. Healey: Will the Foreign Secretary also agree that the South African Government, since they were given an uncovenanted diplomatic triumph by the British Prime Minister a year ago, have invaded two neighbouring countries and have sabotaged their solemn commitment to facilitate independence in Namibia? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that sanctions are always counter-productive, why did he support sanctions against Poland, why is he now supporting American sanctions against Nicaragua, secret details of which were revealed by a recent document leaked by a civil servant in a Government Department? Does he not agree that financial sanctions against Iran were instrumental in securing the release of the America hostages?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has posed a long catalogue of questions. We have always taken a profoundly sceptical view of the value of sanctions anywhere——

Mr. Healey: What about Poland and Nicaragua?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and many of the points implied in his question are not justified by the facts. As a result of the meeting between President Botha, Mr. Botha the Prime Minister, and myself, there have been a number of significant steps, although not large enough, in the direction of reform in South Africa. The tragedy is that they have been blunted and frustrated by the other actions taken at the same time by the South African Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that perhaps the most constructive attitude that could be adopted by Her Majesty's Government would be to encourage South Africa to return to the radical reforms that it was undertaking before the latest violence occurred? Will the British Government do that and, in doing it, support the approach of Bishop Tutu in deploring the violence in the black townships? Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline some of the initiatives which he and the Government will encourage President Botha and his Government to introduce in the Republic of South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should encourage the South African Government to take further the process of reform that had been under way

in recent months. None of those steps go far enough, but they are a start. It is right also to endorse the message from Bishop Tutu that violence of any kind from either side can play only a destructive role in southern Africa.

Nicaragua

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of British citizens currently in Nicaragua.

Mr. Renton: There are currently estimated to be about 70 British citizens resident in Nicaragua.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister condemn the actions of one British citizen recently in Nicaragua, an office bearer of the Federation of Conservative Students, Mr. Hoyle, who flaunted his participation with the Contras? Will he assure the House that, no matter where in the world it occurs, the Government will condemn participation with terrorists in actions against any democratically elected Government by any citizen of the United Kingdom, especially those with political responsibilities?

Mr. Renton: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remarked last week, I think that I am very much more frightened of the Federation of Conservative Students than the Sandinistas are likely to be. The gentleman who was in Nicaragua was not there as a supporter or delegate of Government policy.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the citizens of many other countries, British citizens are permitted to go to any part of the world where a country will allow them to enter, and that when they are there they are entitled, by the freedoms that we are allowed, to make statements of their beliefs, whatever those statements are?

Mr. Renton: Yes, that is right. To refer to the original question, I do not think that British citizens who are in Nicaragua will take any great comfort from the decision of the Greater London council, supported by various Labour Members, to twin London with the Nicaraguan capital of Managua. I do not believe that they will find that a fruitful step.

Mr. Foulkes: Why does the Prime Minister condemn some forms of terrorism by some people and not condemn the terrorist action of Mr. Hoyle in taking part in this Contra attack? Why will the Minister not confirm that the Government are equally against that sort of action by an office bearer of the Federation of Conservative Students, which was quite outwith the bounds of any reasonable action? Why is the Minister facing both ways on this issue? Will he now condemn the action of this office bearer, Mr. Hoyle?

Mr. Renton: I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman, on his return from Nicaragua, on having joined what The Observer described as the
Sandanista bib-and-beret brigade".
It is quite clear that the problems of Central America, including Nicaragua, will not be solved by force, from whichever side it comes. That is why we support the Contradora process and are pleased with the progress that was made at the meeting that ended yesterday.

Immigration

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of recent changes in immigration policy for matters within his responsibility.

Mr. Renton: Recent changes in immigration policy have concerned the imposition of a visa regime on Sri Lanka and the introduction of changes in the immigration rules. Both these subjects were debated in the House last night. These changes have caused or will cause an increase in entry clearance work overseas.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the report in the Official Report of the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who argued with some emotion that we are dealing with individuals and not statistics? Is he aware that queues in the different capitals and entry clearance posts in the subcontinent are likely to lengthen? Surely this is an inhumane way of dealing with the problem of immigration. Applicants are having to wait for 12 months and more for interviews. Will he accept that it is desperately important to consider humanely the possibility of applicants being interviewed far more quickly?

Mr. Renton: We must accept that if there is a change in the immigration rules which allows another new category to apply for entrance to the United Kingdom—for example, the husbands of women who are now settled in this country but not British citizens—there will be an increase in entry clearance work. We shall do our best within the resources available to us to ensure that the delays in the queues are kept to a minimum. We shall consider the possibility of equalising queue lengths between different countries in the Indian subcontinent.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the views of all the Opposition parties, including the Liberal party, the vast majority of people, including many immigrants, respect the Government's immigration policies as being firm and fair?

Mr. Renton: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's point. When I was on the Indian subcontinent earlier this year and had the chance to see the entry clearance officers at work in Pakistan and Bangladesh, I came strongly to the conclusion that they try to apply the immigration rules as fairly and decently as possible.

Cyprus

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the problems of Cyprus with the Secretary General of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of that discussion.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend had discussions with the Secretary General on 23 January and remain in close and frequent contact with him through official channels about the Cyprus problem. The Secretary General has made clear his determination to continue his efforts to bring about a settlement in Cyprus and we have expressed our strong support for his initiative.

Mr. Haynes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not good enough? Has he read early-day motion 915,

which refers to the 11 years during which there has been an invasion of Cyprus? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under a complacent Conservative Administration, Hitler invaded many European nations? What will the hon. Gentleman do about these problems? I am not satisfied with his answer. Action must be taken. Inaction has gone on for long enough. The problems should be sorted out.

Mr. Renton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. We take a serious view of anything that worsens the situation in Cyprus. For that reason we opposed, and called for the reversal of, the so-called declaration of independence in 1983. We drafted and secured the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 541, which deplored the Turkish-Cypriot action and declared that it was legally invalid. We believe that all sides should do their utmost to support the Secretary General's efforts.

Mr. Crouch: I do not want to waste the time of the House——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Everyone else has done so.

Mr. Crouch: Does my hon. Friend realise that he has just answered the question that I wanted to put to him about the fact that the Government confirm that they strongly support United Nations resolutions 541 and 550 and recognise the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as the only Government in Cyprus?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for endowing me with the quality of perceptiveness, which I did not know I possessed. My hon. Friend has put the Government's position accurately and well.

Later——

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention and that of the House to the fact that today's Foreign Office questions mark the end of the experimental period that began earlier this year. during which European Community questions temporarily lost their separate slot. This experiment was agreed between the usual channels, although there was inadequate consultation on either side. To take today's questions as an example, only two European Community questions were asked compared with the seven or eight that would previously have been asked. Whatever one may think of the European Community, it is not being viewed in the same light as the United States of America, the middle east, South Africa or any other part of the world, although it has the power to tax the British people and legislate for them, a power which other parts of the world do not have. May I therefore express the hope through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House will take on board these comments, which have been conveyed to ham separately? I understand that some of the minority parties also feel strongly about this issue.

Sir John Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were 81 oral questions on the Order Paper today to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, only nine of which were devoted to European Community matters. Most of us believe that the experiment has been a great success and we hope that it will continue in a permanent form. There seems to be no reason to devote 20 minutes of Question Time to the European Community when so many other pressing matters in the rest of the world await attention.

Sir Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal party does not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It feels that you, Mr. Speaker, ought to exercise some benign influence over the Government to ensure that these matters are properly ventilated.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I add my support to the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). The experiment has been a failure in the sense that the European Community impinges on so much of the business of this House. Whatever views hon. Members

may have about the European Community, I believe they would prefer that slot to be reinstated, because this experiment has been a failure.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might be for the convenience of the House if I drew its attention to the written answer that was given on 22 March, which initiated the present experiment. It said:
The experiment will last until the summer recess to allow an opportunity for its success to be evaluated. Further discussions will then take place through the usual channels to determine whether the new arrrangement should become permanent." —[Official Report, 22 March 1985; Vol. 75 c. 625.]
May I suggest that we should have those discussions rather than that they should be continued at this momemt.

Local Authorities (Financial Assets)

Mr. Jack Straw: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his proposal to introduce retrospective legislation to take further control over the financial assets of local authorities.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Although the Government welcome the news when a council replaces its mortgage lending with private finance, it is obviously wrong when mortgages are transferred to a bank or other institution en bloc without the consent of the individual borrowers. In many cases, the risk is not transferred to the new lender. Such transactions are artificial and have been entered into only to circumvent the capital controls approved by the House.
I therefore announced yesterday, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), that we propose to legislate at the earliest opportunity to give home owners with a local authority mortgage the right to decide whether the local authority may dispose of its interest to a specified purchaser, and a transfer without consent would be invalid. So far, relatively few councils have entered into such en bloc transactions, but a good many more are in the pipeline.
Because deals can be struck swiftly, we shall ask the House, in order to give immediate protection to borrowers, to give retrospective effect to the change as from midnight last night. I wrote yesterday to the chairmen of the local authority associations offering to consult them on the details of the proposal.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement, which slipped out in a written answer last night, is outrageous and ill-considered, and has nothing to do with the merits of such deals or with protecting individual mortgagors, and everything to do with the Government's crazy economic policy, under which dictatorial controls have been imposed to prevent local authorities from spending their money on capital programmes to build houses, help industry and create jobs'? If these en bloc deals are a bad idea now, why were they a good idea in February when his Department told the Financial Times that
it was happy to encourage this kind of deal.
Is the Secretary of State further aware of the immediate impact that his statement will have, that Calderdale will lose £3 million of planned housing starts, and that Wigan will lose £12 million? How many local authorities and housing associations will be affected? How much is involved? How many jobs will be lost? Will the policy apply to the United Kingdom or to England and Wales only?
Does the Secretary of State not understand that, to the best of my knowledge, every authority has written into these deals protection for the mortgagors? If there were technical problems in that respect, they could have been dealt with through consultation with the local authority associations.
Is not this measure a further example of the Secretary of State's vindictiveness? No such restrictions have been imposed on building societies, which normally expressly

provide for the transfer of mortgages without the consent of the mortgagor. Is the Secretary of State proposing retrospective legislation to deal with that?
Is the Secretary of State further aware that to legislate retrospectively on such a matter is a gross abuse of the democratic procedure? It is the fourth time that he has done that. Does he agree that
Retrospective legislation is a damned slippery slope. Let the House dig its heels in and say that it will have no more of it." —[Official Report, 2 March 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1264.]?
Has he forgotten that those were his exact words in the House when he was a Back Bencher on the way up, rather than a Secretary of State on the way out?

Mr. Jenkin: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should consider it perfectly proper that a local authority should sell the mortgages of all its house purchasers over their heads, without even consulting them, and transfer the obligation in forms which do not even transfer the risk When, during the debates on the Local Government Act, there was a question of transferring the Greater London council mortgages, the hon. Gentleman was one of the first to insist that that should be done only with the consent of the borrowers. His indignation is synthetic.
The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the measure applies only in England and Wales. The question that I answered yesterday applies only to England and Wales. I am not responsible for these matters in Scotland. He asked for other facts and figures. In December 1984, when we gave the House an estimate of the receipts in the year 1985–86 from the sale of local authority assets, we did not take any account of block sales of mortgages, such as we are discussing today. Therefore——

Dr. John Cunningham: It is their money.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position that it is their money.

Dr. Cunningham: It is.

Mr. Jenkin: The truth is it is also the mortgagor's mortgage, and he is entitled to be consulted.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which the Liverpool city council went cap in hand to the Banque Parisbas to sell its mortgage book for £30 million was a shabby deal to get round my right hon. Friend's prudent cash limits? Will he confirm that locked up in local authority mortgage books are £5,000 million, which are ratepayers' assets? Does he agree that it would be much better if those assets were unlocked for the benefit of the ratepayers, and if the borrowers transferred their liability to building societies and banks, which have much more sympathy and understanding for the relationship between the home owner and the borrower, and for cases of hardship and arrears? Would my right hon. Friend encourage every borrower to transfer his or her mortgage to building societies and banks accordingly?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a perfectly proper and welcome transaction when a local authority, as it were, accelerates the receipt of capital assets by refinancing its mortgages to the private sector, provided it does so with the consent of the borrowers. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we consider it an entirely appropriate way of generating capital receipts.
Many people, both inside and outside the House, were taken aback by Liverpool city council's transaction with


the Banque Parisbas. There were conflicting views about the legality of the procedure, which is why we shall take an early opportunity to legislate to make the position absolutely clear.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the homes of many private tenants in my constituency are constantly sold over their heads from one landlord to another? If that is legal and acceptable, why should it be wrong for mortgage loans to be transferred without the individual approval of the borrower?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that most hon. Members would have been astonished if it had been said a few months ago that it would be perfectly acceptable for a local authority simply to sell a mortgage to a building society without even consulting the tenants. The hon. Gentleman took part in the debates on the Local Government Bill, when the provision was pressed hard on the Government—not that it needed to be, because we recognise the need to obtain the tenants' consent—that when GLC mortgages are transferred, that should be done with the mortgagors' consent. The disposal of freeholds on property where the tenant has a lease is an entirely different branch of the law, and does not come within this question.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statements by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn, (Mr. Straw), show how much of an armlock the hard Left has on the Labour party? Does he further agree that not only is the hon. Member for Blackburn supporting the madcap Marxists on the Liverpool council, but he is what we all believed him to be, Mr. Hatton's poodle?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend lays bare the inherent contradictions in the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who purport to show their respectable face in the House, where they are parliamentarians believing in the rule of law, but who never fail to give aid and comfort to the wreckers who do not believe in the rule of law.

Mr. Roger Stott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the appalling decision that he has taken, in what can be described only as an underhand and dubious manner, will in effect deprive my local authority in Wigan of £12 million that could be spent on housing and education projects that are badly needed in that town? Can he tell me and those people how he can justify that unwarranted intrusion into legitimate local government business?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman might suggest to his local authority that it could secure the receipts that it hopes to get if it persuaded the borrowers that it would be right to transfer their mortgages to the institutions that the council may have in mind. If that was done, there could be no possible objection. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck.

Mr. Terry Davis: Why is it wrong for a council to sell a mortgage without the consent of the borrower if it is all right for a building society to sell a mortgage without the consent of the borrower?

Mr. Jenkin: I am advised that it is almost impossible for one building society to sell a mortgage to another without the consent of the borrower—

Mr. Straw: Not true.

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman consults the legal textbooks on the matter—

Mr. Straw: I have.

Mr. Jenkin: —he will find that building societies are always advised to do that. Recently, one or two banks have entered into such block transactions, but the fact is that they have not succeeded in transferring the risk, and they remain in a contractual relationship with the borrowers. We are concerned with the propriety of public authorities—local authorities—and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should take that view.

Mr. Dave Nellist: May I thank the Secretary of State for his vindictive announcement this afternoon? Does he realise that it gives Back Benchers such as myself who are of relatively recent origin hope for the next Labour Government? If it is all right for the Tories retrospectively to take away powers from councils such as Liverpool, Lambeth and the others that have been mentioned today, it will be all right for the next Labour Government to reverse the decisions, rebate that money and give it back to the local authorities. In addition, they will be able to have retrospective legislation for others such as the miners who have been attacked by the Government and those who have lost their jobs. If retrospective legislation is all right for the Tories, it will be all right for Labour next time.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that he has clearly totally misunderstood what was said in yesterday's answer and what I have said today. Nothing in the answer in any way affects the transactions entered into by Liverpool or any other transaction entered into by a council before midnight last night. We want the legislation to run from the date of the announcement, to protect the borrowers and to ensure that their consent is obtained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that.

Mr. Jim Craigen: When will Ministers stop this game of cat and mouse with local authorities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement demonstrate more of the sour grapes at the Treasury that local authorities are doing what Ministers keep exhorting them to do—deal with public assets?

Mr. Jenkin: I detect behind the hon. Gentleman's question the dissatisfaction with the present capital control system that I share. He will know that I have been in discussion with local authority associations for some months now in an endeavour to find a better system which will achieve the Treasury's objective of more certain control over the total of local authority capital spending while leaving local authorities with greater certainty and flexibility, so that they can plan their capital programmes further ahead.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Before my right hon. Friend pours more money into the bottomless pit of Liverpool city council, will he ensure that all grants have stringent conditions attached to them so that Liverpool cannot spend money as it wishes and so that the


Government have some control of public money? Will he ensure that he does not make the same mistake that Liverpool city council is making and announce in a written answer on Friday that the Government propose to go through the national park of Dartmoor on the southern route south of Okehampton?

Mr. Jenkin: I admire my hon. Friend's geographical ingenuity. I have to tell him that I have to make payments to Liverpool and any other council in accordance with the laws passed by the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How many people made representations to the Secretary of State alleging that their interests were not being looked after in these transactions? How many others will lose the chance of housing this year? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the move has been supported by the Labour party and by councils such as Calderdale, which are balanced. He saw this coming but has decided to act only now. The Audit Commission told him that his Department should maximise assets for house building rather than reduce, let alone retrospectively, at the tail end of the Session, the chance of people having housing. The right hon. Gentleman has presided over a massive deficit in housing and he appears to want it to continue for the rest of the financial year.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the misapprehension that something I have said today discourages local authorities from refinancing their mortgages in the normal way. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to stress that the Government welcome that being done when it is done in the normal way by securing the consent of the mortgagor. If Calderdale or any other county council wants to enter into such a transaction, it needs only to secure the consent of its tenants—which, if the hon. Gentleman is right, will benefit the local community and be readily forthcoming.

Hon. Member for Linlithgow

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether this would be a convenient moment to raise a matter concerning the third report of the Foreign Affairs Committee which deals with the events of 1 and 2 May 1982. Paragraph 1.6 of that report states that there is sufficient indirect evidence to support the view that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had supplied Committee documents to the press —The Guardian and the New Statesman.
I have received a letter from the hon. Member in which he says that he did not leak those documents to the papers concerned and nor did anyone acting for him. The Committee accepts what the hon. Member has written and I will therefore propose that the Committee makes that clear in a separate report to the House. I know that the Committee will wish me to express regrets for any embarrassment caused to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Homelessness

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During a visit to the northeast last week, the Minister for Housing and Construction said that, in the next fortnight, he hoped to announce further measures to alleviate the real problem of homelessness. In view of substantial public and parliamentary concern about the problem of homelessness and as two weeks takes us into the recess, will you, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of the Secretary of State for the Environment, join me in expressing the hope that a statement will be made while the House is still sitting?

Mr. Speaker: There is very little time.

Sports Grounds (Safety and Control)

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have expressed your concern in the past—most recently yesterday—about reports to this House being made available in advance to the media. I understand that the report of Mr. Justice Popplewell's committee of inquiry into safety and control at sports grounds, about which there is to be a statement, was made available yesterday to the media under an embargo. I checked at the Vote Office at 11 am and was told that the report was not available. I was also told that there was no indication of when it would be made available to hon. Members. I was subsequently informed that it was made available at or about midday.
As the report relates to very important matters, not least to the death and injury of our constituents, many hon. Members can see no good reason why reports to this House should be made available to the media under an embargo but should be denied to Members of the House until hours before a statement is to be made, thus putting us in a very poor position to put questions to the responsible Minister on a report which was made available to the media long before it was made available to hon. Members. Can you please, Mr. Speaker, do something to ensure that Government Departments stop this practice, which causes considerable annoyance to all hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that I can do much more than continue to express my sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said, and with what was said yesterday and previously. It is a matter for the Government, not for me. However, the Leader of the House is here and will have noted what has been said.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should say that I regret what has occurred. The plan was that the report would be published at 10.30 this morning, which I hope the House will feel would have given hon. Members enough time to consider it carefully.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. The Government have today published the interim report of the inquiry into safety and control at sports grounds under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Popplewell, established following the tragic fire at Bradford city football ground, and the events at Birmingham city on 11 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are both deeply grateful for the speedy, clear and thorough way in which the chairman and his two assessors have tackled this difficult and important task.
The inquiry concludes that the Bradford fire was probably caused by the accidental dropping of a lighted match or cigarette or tobacco on to accumulated rubbish below the stand; that had the guide to safety at sports grounds—the "green guide"—been complied with, the tragedy would not have occurred; and that the riot at Birmingham — which the police could not reasonably have foreseen—was caused by spectators bent from the outset on violence. No one reading the report, or who followed the public hearings in Bradford, can doubt that the inquiry has investigated these matters as thoroughly as possible.
The inquiry makes 32 recommendations, eight of which are provisional. They fall into two groups: those concerned with safety and those concerned with control. I am making available separately a written statement dealing with each of the recommendations.
The safety recommendations include several designed to improve arrangements at sports grounds by, for example, improving evacuation procedures, the training of stewards, the provision of fire-fighting equipment and increasing the scope of safety certificates. In all those cases the Government will be inviting the local authorities, the police and the sports authorities to respond immediately to the spirit of the recommendations. The Government will issue a fresh edition of the guide to safety at sports grounds, the green guide, in the light of the inquiry's final report. But they will also ask certificating authorities and the police, in exercising their powers to take full account of the recommendations for amending the green guide, before the issue of the new edition. There is no need for them to wait.
On crowd control, the inquiry has made a number of important recommendations concerning membership cards and closed circuit television, the creation of new criminal offences relating to smoke bombs and the throwing of missiles and the need for a more suitable police radio.
On membership cards, the inquiry recommends that urgent consideration be given by football clubs in England and Wales to introducing a membership system so as to exclude visiting fans. Also recommended is that closed circuit television be introduced at league football grounds. The Government strongly support the television recommendation, and have already made clear their support for a scheme of membership cards to help exclude troublemakers. A Football League working party is considering the options and I would urge the league and the Football Association to take heed of the recommendations of the inquiry by seeking jointly to reach positive conclusions at the earliest practicable date.
It is also proposed that new offences should be created making criminal the possession of smoke bombs in football grounds and the throwing of missiles. This proposal will be carefully considered for possible inclusion in the public order legislation that the Government hope to introduce next Session. The Directorate of Telecommunications at the Home Office will also consider, as a matter of urgency, how best to meet the concern expressed about the personal police radios used at Bradford.
In its provisional conclusions, the inquiry states that it is minded to recommend changes to the provisions of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; that the police be given additional powers of search and arrest; and that consideration be given to the creation of a specific offence of chanting obscene or racialist abuse at a sports ground. We shall, of course, consider with care any recommendations that the inquiry makes on these and other points in the final report.
I hope that it will also be convenient for me to bring the House up to date on matters relating to safety and control since my statement on 13 May. First, under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act I have designated all the qualifying grounds of clubs in divisions 3 and 4 in the Football League in England and Wales, as well as in divisions 1 and 2 of the Rugby League. The necessary orders were laid on 19 July and come into force on 9 August. From the latter date, clubs will be required to apply for safety certificates


before admitting any spectators. I have made it clear to the certifying authorities that the expectation is that they will work swiftly, normally by means of issuing interim certificates. In some cases, the best way of providing immediate protection— while also reducing the costs of implementation — may well be to restrict attendance ceilings in grounds or parts of grounds.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided for his part not to proceed at present by extending designation in Scotland beyond its existing limits. However, he has arranged for all non-designated clubs and all governing bodies in sport in Scotland to conduct an urgent review of ground safety in co-operation with their local fire authorities.
Secondly, all uncertificated grounds of the third and fourth divisions of the Football League, of the first and second divisions of the Scottish Football League, and of the first and second divisions of the Rugby League have been inspected as a result of the request that I and my right hon. Friend made to chief fire officers and firemasters. In addition, accommodation for spectators at the larger cricket grounds, Rugby Union grounds, race courses, motor racing tracks, greyhound tracks, tennis clubs and athletics grounds has been inspected.
Chief fire officers and firemasters have sent copies of their findings to the management of the sports grounds showing what remedial measures have to be taken. In some cases, this will involve the complete closure of a stand until rebuilding or remedial work has been completed. In other cases, strict limits are being placed on the number of spectators allowed into the stand. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport will be looking further at the financial implications with the interests concerned in his working group on the financing of safety improvements. Managements have responded in a cooperative way and have either set necessary work in hand or are considering how to comply with the requirements. Local authorities and local fire authorities have sufficient statutory powers to ensure that essential fire safety requirements are complied with. These will in no way be affected by the separate proposals directed towards streamlining the present law on fire precautions published yesterday in a consultative document and which I am inviting the inquiry also to consider in the context of its work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are grateful to chief fire officers and firemasters for the prompt, efficient and careful manner in which this survey has been carried out. A digest of the reports will be submitted to the inquiry.
Thirdly, the House will, of course, be aware of the rapid passage through both Houses of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill. It will be in force by the beginning of the football season.
Fourthly, steps have also been taken to enhance police effectiveness next season. In England and Wales the Association of Chief Police Officers has introduced a new system for exchanging information about the conduct of fans, which should assist in anticipating and preventing trouble. Three of the Home Office photographic vehicles will be available to be deployed at football matches, together with two experimental high-definition tripod-mounted cameras. This is in addition to the £500,000 worth of closed circuit television equipment purchased through funds provided by the Football Trust.
Fifthly, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport has helped to promote and draw up a Council of Europe convention on spectator violence which was adopted by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers yesterday.
There is no single, simple method of making sports grounds safe and free from violence, but I believe that the steps taken in the past few months, coupled with the implementation of the important recommendations of Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry, have already made, and wall make, a significant contribution towards preserving football as a major spectator sport.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This report makes profoundly depressing reading. We must pay tribute to Mr. Justice Popplewell for the care with which, in the limited time available to him, he has looked into these matters. The account of the events leading up to the Bradford fire is particularly heart-rending in the aftermath of Sunday's moving memorial service. The description of what took place in Birmingham is a sickening catalogue of mindless violence and brutality.
We need to know what can be done urgently to present such outrages and tragedies from happening again. In that context, the press handout accompanying the report is simply impractical in declaring:
The Committee has produced an interim report so that safety levels can be improved quickly before the start of the new football season in August".
The new football season begins in just over three weeks and, although the report contains a number of useful and sometimes important recommendations, hardly any of them could be implemented and have a noticeable effect in time for 17 August.
For example, recommendations about improving the efficiency and increasing the responsibilities of stewards assume that stewards can be trained to be some kind of super-efficient elite corps. Anyone who knows the real world of football stewarding knows that this is more easily said than done. The report points out that in Bradford, for example, the ages of the stewards ranged from 73 to 12.
Again, the report's recommendations on installation of perimeter fencing does not resolve the two conflicting roles of such fencing as, on the one hand, a protection of the pitch against hooligans and on the other a prison penning in potential fire victims in circumstances of panic.
Certain recommendations do not seem to have been thought through. For example. the proposed ban on all cars being parked within a quarter of a mile of football grounds means that law-abiding householders will be prevented from parking their cars outside their homes. This will affect my constituents, for example, and no doubt many thousands of other people.
Again, immediate designation of all sports grounds with a capacity of 500 or more as recommended, could affect 50,000 small grounds. Is this remotely practicable? Again, there are serious doubts among the football authorities and the police about the principle and practicality of two Popplewell recommendations— that of admission by membership tickets only and that only registered supporters of home teams should be permitted to attend games. This is an unprecedented proposal with serious implications, which Mr. Justice Popplewell does not seem to have considered.
Even if we set aside these issues, has anything been done about such recommendations? We are now nearly two months beyond the time limit set by the Government


for practical schemes for membership cards to be introduced by the football authorities. Nothing has been decided and all that we now get from the Government on this are further pious hopes, expressed by the Home Secretary.
Again, only limited progress has been made for plans to install a universal system of closed circuit television and the funds available from the Football Trust do not begin to match the need here.
Most of Mr. Justice Popplewell's other recommendations have been met by the Home Secretary only with vague expressions of good will. People will be "invited" to do this, "consultations" will take place on that, "consideration" will be given to the other. Some points have been noted, others are to be studied. Hopes are voiced. The Government express their readiness to stand by.
The problem of fascist involvement, with which the report deals in disturbing detail, is not confronted by the Home Secretary. While the report has an excellent and well thought-out description of the nature of violence that we encounter in our society, and makes it clear that the violence in football grounds is only a manifestation in one group of places of the violence that is inherent throughout our society, Mr. Justice Popplewell's terms of reference preclude him from making any recommendations on this matter. We have heard nothing from the Home Secretary today about this profoundly important issue. But, above all, the press handout on the report admits that the inquiry did not deal with financial questions. Of the 24 immediate recommendations of this report, 13 require immediate and substantial outlay or entail serious financial consequences. There are no proposals from the Government to deal with that problem, only an examination to take place on some unspecified date. Even the most prosperous clubs, and they are few enough in number, do not have adequate resources to carry out the recommendations contained in the report and which the Government appear to endorse in principle. The Football Trust simply does not have the money left to fund these proposals.
The only solution is the equivalent of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, a football levy board, which will return to the game some of the massive revenues that the Treasury extracts from it. That is the approach of the Labour party and that is what it advocates, because pious hopes will not provide remedies for the serious problems vividly described in this report. What we need is action and that is not what we are getting from the Government.

Mr. Brittan: Many people outside the ranks of Government supporters will be disappointed at the carping response of the official Opposition spokesman to these proposals. The response was not only carping but inconsistent. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman calls for the expenditure of substantial sums of public money and urgent action, and on the other hand he objects to some of the recommendations in the report because they are unprecedented. He must make up his mind about whether what occurred this year illustrates a situation that is unprecedented and that requires action, or one to which conventional solutions can be applied.
Of course the financial questions are important and, as I indicated in my statement, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport and his working party are engaged in

discussions about those. It is a misrepresentation both of Mr. Justice Popplewell's report and of the Government's response to it, to imply that nothing can be done or that nothing is being done in the short term. Opposition Members were as anxious as anyone and more anxious than some that Mr. Justice Popplewell should make an interim report. I indicated that he was most welcome to do so and that it was up to him to decide whether he thought that would be useful. He did so decide and he was right. It is in the nature of things that when an interim report is produced within weeks, its recommendations cannot be instantly implemented. But it does not follow from that that it is not worth doing, because the implementation process can be started that much earlier.
The report contained specific recommendations about fire precautions related to the green guide and its contents. I have said from the Dispatch Box that, although we are producing a new edition, those recommendations should be regarded as the guidance of Government from this moment on. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is clever to talk in a carping way about some things being recommended and others being subject to guidance. Some of these matters, such as safety, are not determined by Government issuing detailed edicts affecting the whole country: they are determined by local authorities considering applications in accordance with Government guidance. I have had no complaints that that guidance has not been followed, because invariably it has been.
In announcing today that that guidance will be varied in accordance with the recommendations in Mr. Justice Popplewell's report, we are operating in the proper way to ensure that safety requirements are properly complied with in the light of the new recommendations. For the right hon. Gentleman to suggest anything else may score a few cheap political points, but it will lead people who are attending grounds to have unnecessary anxieties, and it does less than justice to the inquiry and to the local authorities who will implement this report.
Similar considerations apply to the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody realises that the recommendations about the training of stewards and perimeter fencing cannot be implemented instantly. In matters such as training, it is obvious that the earlier the recommendation is made about what should be done the better and the sooner an improvement will come. I ask the House to take the view that this report is necessary. It is by definition a partial view of the position, but it makes important and valuable recommendations, which are being pursued vigorously and urgently.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are two other statements after this and a ten-minute Bill. This is an important Back-Bench day and I ask for brief questions, please.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I welcome the report and his statement? Both are condemnations of the state of many football grounds and many spectators, and fully justify the tough line taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by the Minister responsible for sport. Will the Home Secretary press ahead and ask the football authorities to implement as many of the excellent


recommendations as possible? Will he have further consultations about the controversial issue of membership cards and the designation of all sports grounds?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There will be consultations. I hope that the House will feel that membership cards have a useful part to play in crowd control. Plainly, that is not a view held only by the Government, because it was authoritatively supported by Mr. Justice Popplewell and his inquiry. It is therefore incumbent upon the football authorities to consider the different options and to press ahead urgently. I welcome the fact that the Football League investigation into these matters will produce a report in September. I hope the Football Association will also feel able to enter into discussions on this important matter.

Mr. Clement Freud: We on the Liberal Benches welcome the recommendations of the Popplewell report. Before the Home Secretary introduces new and largely unworkable legislation, which could jeopardise the traditional appeal of our unique national game, will he not think again about encouraging local authorities to operate more closely with football clubs and try to find a solution in that way? The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggested a levy board. Would the Home Secretary accept that if only 10 per cent. of the money spent on transferring, buying and selling footballers had been spent on improving grounds we would now have the best stadiums in the world?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely accept the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is a fair point. I also agree that cooperation between football authorities and local authorities is important. He referred to the traditional appeal of football, but one cannot help thinking rather wrily and sadly of the events on 11 May. They were indications that not all that infrequently the traditional appeal has turned into something rather more horrific. In the light of that we have to contemplate action which is regrettable but wholly necessary.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in trials following the violence in the coal strike it proved difficult to get convictions, despite acts of obvious violence? Will he bear those difficulties in mind when shaping the legislation and the steps he proposes to take to deal with violence at sports events?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an important point to take into account. Sometimes it is a question of the law, but more often it is a question of law enforcement and the availability of evidence. The introduction of closed circuit television in some 30 grounds, coupled with the availability of the Home Office equipment I have referred to, will be an important step in that direction.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Home Secretary aware that while much of the Popplewell report will be welcomed by the football world, much of it bears all the hallmarks of an interim report, in that the judge and his assessors did not have time to look at the many and diverse problems facing football?
Is the Home Secretary aware that the football world will be particularly critical of the blanket membership card scheme and the banning of away supporters? Are the

Home Secretary and Mr. Justice Popplewell convinced that if my team, Derby County, came to London, I should not go along and give them a cheer? God knows they need it. That is not practical and it is not on.
Is the Home Secretary aware that on behalf of the all-party football committee I presented to Mr. Justice Popplewell a membership card scheme for away supporters that is much more practical than the scheme that he is offering?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, if any or all of the proposals are to be implemented by the football clubs, the Government cannot stand from giving them the necessary financial assistance, whether through a levy board or other means. Otherwise, the Home Secretary will go down in history as having helped to kill off our national game.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the House will find it surprising that an interim report bears all the hallmarks of an interim report. That is inevitable and right and proper. Mr. Justice Popplewell carefully takes heed of that inevitable fact by distinguishing between firm recommendations and provisional recommendations. That seems to be a sensible approach. He and the rest of the committee will reflect on the provisional recommendations and consider them further as they proceed with their work. No doubt others will comment on them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned membership card schemes. Mr. Justice Popplewell does not suggest that the proposal referred to by the hon. Gentleman is the only one or that it is free from difficulties.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is the one that Popplewell recommends.

Mr. Brittan: It is indeed, but Mr. Justice Popplewell points out the difficulties and suggests that there are other approaches. The right course is for the football authorities to look at the desirability of schemes in the light of the report and I hope that they will come forward urgently with practical, sensible positive and enforceable proposals.

Mr. Gary Waller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most reasonable people will feel that his response to the report is a reasonable balance between practicality and urgency? Is not there an essential contradiction in the view of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the Government should take immediate action and his statement that the Government are proposing action that cannot be implemented within three weeks?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. Gentleman's response was riddled with inconsistencies.

Mr. Madden: What practical steps is the Home Secretary taking to implement the recommendation:
There should be urgent consultation between the Health &amp; Safety Executive and the fire authorities and the local authorities as to how best to coordinate and communicate their inspections and reports"?
Is the Home Secretary aware that many of the recommendations call for all these bodies to spend money that they do not have and for work to be done by officials whom they do not have, because local authorities have had their incomes reduced by the Government and many have been reorganised, usually ending up with less manpower than previously?
The Home Secretary accuses the Opposition of carping criticism, but does he not understand that he and his


Government stand accused of complacency, with a maximum of talk about these matters and a minimum of positive action?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that for a single moment. The fact that action is being taken is made clear by, for example, the fact that among third and fourth division football grounds, five stands have been the subject of local authority recommendations for closure pending further work and seven grounds have been recommended for reduced spectator capacity. The suggestion that none of this has any practical impact does not stand scrutiny. As for the form of co-operation and consultation recommended in the report, there is nothing in any of the financial measures introduced by the Government that prevents that from occurring.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: I pay tribute to Mr. Justice Popplewell not only for the prompt way in which he produced his report but for the sensitive way in which he conducted his inquiry. I know that that view is felt strongly in Bradford. I am sure that the chairman and directors of Bradford city would not seek to deny that points made in the report, which says that much of the action required would have been taken if the necessary resources had been available. Therefore, as the burden of ensuring that a similar tragedy never happens again must now fall jointly on the Government and football representatives, will the Government speed up negotiations with the football representatives to ensure that clubs can take the necessary measures and have the necessary financial resources to do so?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks about Mr. Justice Popplewell and his inquiry will be all the more appreciated because of my hon. Friend's distinguished involvement in the aftermath of the tragic events. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport is sitting on the Government Front Bench and he will certainly take my hon. Friend's comments into account in his deliberations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I press the Home Secretary on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said about money? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I have both been told by the chairman of Chelsea that his club cannot even afford the computer that will be necessary to bring in the desirable modifications. Where is the money to come from? Chelsea is one of the richest clubs.

Mr. Brittan: The idea that there is no money available is belied by the fact that about £7 million has been disbursed by the Football Trust in recent years, and the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) is not without force. However, it is not for me to judge the financial capacity of the football world to deal with these matters. I have said clearly that the financial aspects of the matter are being considered by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport and his working party, and all these matters can be looked at.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: I strongly support the excellent interim report, but will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is not the Government's intention to give one-off capital grants to football clubs for

safety improvements, as that would unfairly discriminate against many other businesses — professional football clubs are businesses — which pay from their own resources for putting the safety of their employees and the public at the top of their priorities?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend's comments will assist the Minister responsible for sport in appreciating that there is more than one view of these matters.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary is, of course, aware that the report deals with Elland road football ground, the home of Leeds United, which was in my constituency for 20 years and is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who is in Leeds today and on whose behalf I am speaking. I live within a quarter of a mile of the ground and I hope that I will not he stopped from parking my car within a quarter of a mile of the ground.
I welcome the report. Whatever is said by Popplewell, the report will need time for implementation. I only hope that the clubs, the local authorities and the police in every area are sitting down now planning what they will do from 17 August. I do not believe that, even when Popplewell produces his further report, his proposals, desirable as they may be, will deal with the problem
There are three things about Leeds United, the club which I support. In Birmingham, so-called Leeds supporters had pickaxes and wore swastika armbands. They came to the ground drunk. It needs more than Popplewell. I have stood outside Elland road in the past when we had real crowds. What is wrong with society? The report talks about containment; there is something radically wrong with some of the spectators that go to these grounds. We ought to be looking at the causes of it and not just how to stop it.

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says and I welcome the fact that he recognises the value and importance of an interim report which proposes practical measures but was not designed to address the wider issue of the cause of football violence. I am sure that any attempt to do that would not have led to the practical proposals that have come forward.
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the sort of discussions and planning that he commends are taking place throughout the country and specifically in west Yorkshire at the moment.

Mr. John Carlisle: While partially accepting some of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Popplewell, such as those relating to identity cards, television help and so on, I must express to my right hon. and learned Friend my concern that the report seems to put the whole responsibility for what is basically a social disease on football. May I draw to his attention paragraphs 6.55 and 6.58 on punishment? In paragraph 6.55, Mr. Justice Popplewell says:
I believe there is a good deal of justification for this view"—
that is, that many people think that the sentences are not stiff enough. He goes on to quote Lord Justice Lawton in January 1984, and says:
We infer that those who have a propensity to use violence are not deterred by fines or by orders imposing only a limited restriction on liberty.


Can we have an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government will consider the recommendations and come before the House in the autumn with some much stronger measures that deter hooligans so that we do not face such problems in the future?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent, however inadvertently, what Mr. Justice Popplewell said on these matters. In fact, he said:
While the independence of the judiciary of the executive is an important feature of our constitution and courts must feel free to impose in a particular case a sentence which they consider appropriate, it is worth repeating the trenchant words of Lord Justice Lawton".
He then quotes the words of Lord Justice Lawton. In other words, the learned judge is drawing to the attention of the community, and commending, the fact that Lord Justice Lawton pointed out the circumstances in which it was proper and possible to impose severe sentences in cases of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind. The ability of the courts to respond to that guidance is shown most notably and helpfully perhaps in the Cambridge case, when very severe sentences were imposed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I realise that the report does not deal with Northern Ireland, I welcome the general tendency of it, and observe that we are learning from it. May I press the Home Secretary to comment a little further, following his answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), on a membership system to exclude visiting fans? I am positive that there are those who come from Scotland, there are certainly those who come from Northern Ireland, and there are others who come from other parts of the world, who would like to be able to see decent football. Rather than hindering genuine, visiting spectators, should not more attention be given to dealing with the social problem of those who, even as home fans, disrupt society, rather than penalising visiting fans?

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but what Mr. Justice Popplewell is saying in that recommendation is that things have reached such a pass in football with regard to football violence that it is necessary to consider taking a measure which otherwise in principle would be intensely undesirable and which would certainly, if implemented, prevent people from doing something which hitherto they have rightly and properly wanted to do. That is a recommendation which cannot be ignored or set aside. The judge explores and explains fully the difficulties, and discusses some of the alternatives. I think it behoves us not to carp at the particular recommendation, but to address the problem and the way of solving it which the judge identifies.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I join in the general congratulations to Mr. Justice Popplewell on the depth and speed of the report, but I take issue with recommendation 20 on membership cards. As gate money is important, particularly to the smaller clubs, and as that gate money comes from regular supporters of the home team, regular supporters of the away team and casual supporters, it is surely damaging to smaller clubs to take away two parts of that gate money. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be better to have a national membership scheme, and does he join me in regretting that the governing bodies of the sport have consistently prevaricated and procrastinated? One factor

that has necessitated the report is that those bodies have not put their house in order. They are now asking the Government to do it for them.

Mr. Brittan: I do not wish to use the opportunity to criticise anybody, but it is an objective fact that the recommendation in the report relating to membership cards has to be seen in the context of a rejection by the football authorities of a national membership scheme of the kind that my hon. Friend commends. What Mr. Justice Popplewell would have said if they had vigorously pursued such a scheme and implemented it, or what he might now say in his final report if they consider the proposal and say, "This is not any good, let us revert to a national scheme", is a matter for speculation today but, I hope, for serious consideration tomorrow.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Government specifically consider giving financial assistance to struggling third and fourth division clubs? For example, Newport county, as a result of an inspection of its ground by the authorities, has been told that to bring the ground up to safety standards will cost no less than £260,000. If it receives a 75 per cent. grant from the Football Trust, this will leave a sum of between £60,000 and £70,000 to be found, which is money that it just does not have.

Mr. Brittan: I recognise the difficulties identified by the hon. Gentleman, but in many situations it is possible that the clubs concerned have capacity that they do not use in full and that partial closure is, at least in the interim, an option that should be considered.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take an early opportunity to refute the suggestion that the Government would make any public money available to this so-called sport? As for the correlation made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) between horse racing and the betting levy board, he just does not understand a word of what he is saying. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that, until the football authorities have the same sort of control that there is in racing, then really there is absolutely nothing that the Labour party has to say on the issue.

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I think the first responsibility is on the football authorities and those who run clubs to make them safe. The Government can introduce legislation relating to the criminal law and to public order, and the learned judge can make a report, with recommendations on safety and other matters, but none of that should divert attention from the fact that the primary responsibility belongs to those who run the game and invite people to attend matches.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: While I recognise that many of the recommendations of the Popplewell inquiry cannot be implemented immediately, can the Home Secretary at least give an assurance that on 17 August clubs will not be opening which do not satisfy the necessary safety requirements?

Mr. Brittan: Clubs which open by then will. if designated, have had to apply for a certificate before that day.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: All Football League and Football Association clubs must surely


welcome the recommendations of the report. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that many of these clubs are unlikely to carry out those recommendations either before 17 August or later in the year? Can we get them to put their own house in order so that they unlock the turnstiles and kick out those people who just do not behave? Will he join other hon. Members and support the suggestion of a national identity card, which is the only way to kick out offenders, by keeping a central register?

Mr. Brittan: I have not spoken unsympathetically about that proposal, but more generally it will not be an option open to clubs involved in these matters simply to ignore the recommendations, because legal obligations will be imposed upon them by designation, to name but one example.

Mr. Peter Pike: Will not the Home Secretary recognise the serious concern that will be felt in many clubs in the country if the proposal on membership cards has to go ahead? Not only will there be severe financial and administrative costs, but this will be a deterrent to the casual supporter who may well become a regular supporter. Will he not recognise that it is an infringement of civil rights to stop the genuine supporter travelling to the away match just because of the hooligan element in society? Is it not a serious indictment of society if the Government have to move along those lines? My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I met the London branch of Burnley football club supporters this morning. There are 37 such clubs that support provincial clubs in London. How will they be affected, because they are made up of loyal supporters who travel all over the country, as far as Aberdeen and Plymouth, to see the teams they support?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman talks about civil liberties. I do not think that that is involved here. It is open to a club to decide whom it wishes to admit. It can decide to admit members only. On the financial advantages and disadvantages, many clubs may feel that if they can convince communities that they can attend football matches safely, the financial advantage from more people coming to watch the games will far outweigh any disadvantage resulting from implementing measures necessary to bring that about.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: When considering the recommendations of the report may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that there are clubs such as Scunthorpe United in my constituency which are the backbone of the football league? Is he aware that they have an average gate of between 2,500 and 3,000 people throughout the season, so that the recommendations on visiting fans and the work necessary to meet the fire officers' requirements would cause a great loss of income? Is he further aware that they would be unable to bear the capital costs without assistance? Can my right hon. and learned Friend offer any hope to such clubs?

Mr. Brittan: I cannot offer them any assistance today. I have already indicated the context in which that matter is being considered by the working group of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As a supporter of that very famous Scottish club Morton, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is going on in Scotland? If I heard him right, he spoke of an urgent review in Scotland. When will it take place and when will its findings be published? Will it include Berwick Rangers? Will he remind his Scottish ministerial colleagues that recommendation 20 of the report refers to membership cards being confined to England and Wales? We do not need them in Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: What I said in the statement was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not to extend designation in Scotland beyond its present limits. He has arranged for all non-designated clubs and all governing bodies in sport in Scotland to conduct an urgent review of ground safety, in co-operation with the local fire authorities.

Mr. Tony Favell: May I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) in asking my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will consider the possibility of introducing a national identity card system, such as prevails in many Continental countries?

Mr. Brittan: I hope that the whole question of identity cards and admission cards will be considered. Mr. Justice Popplewell has made his recommendation. A number of my hon. Friends have suggested an alternative. Of one thing I am quite sure—that either of the alternatives is better than the present position of having no system.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 July, at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I represented the United Kingdom.
The Council discussed the arrangements for the intergovernmental conference called by the Milan European Council. A copy of its conclusions on that subject has been placed in the Library of the House. The conference will take place at the level of Foreign Ministers. The first meeting will be in Luxembourg on 9 September. The Political Committee has been asked to draw up, by 15 October, a draft treaty on political cooperation on the basis of our own and the Franco-German proposals. Proposals for treaty amendment will be looked at in a group which will meet at official level to prepare work for Foreign Ministers to consider.
Agreement was reached on two directives providing for freedom of establishment for pharmacists and mutual recognition of their qualifications.
The Council agreed a Community position on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement for the GATT textiles committee meeting on 23 July.
The Commission reported to the Council on the negotiations between the Community and the United States on steel products not covered by the 1982 carbon steel arrangement and on the current trade dispute between the Community and the United States on citrus and pasta. The Council held a first discussion on the Commission's proposals to increase the Community's tariff on video tape recorders and reduce the tariff on semiconductors, and approved the eighth annual report on co-operation with the EFTA countries.
The Council agreed a negotiating mandate for an EC-Central America co-operation agreement. It also reviewed progress in EC-Gulf Co-operation Council relations.
The Council agreed arrangements for approving proposals brought forward under the Mediterranean financial protocols. It also agreed the terms to be applied to Spain's use of pre-accession aid to reduce excess fishing capacity.
The Council formally adopted the reference framework for 1986 in accordance with the Council's conclusions of December 1984 on controlling Community expenditure. That fixes the maximum level of permitted expenditure to finance Community policies in 1986. Following a meeting with the European Parliament, the Council also adopted the agreed regulation implementing integrated Mediterranean programmes.
Meeting in political co-operation, the Foreign Ministers discussed the recent resurgence of terrorism and hijacking. They agreed to put urgent work in hand for joint action by the Ten to combat that problem. They also issued statements on Afghanistan and to make clear their concern at recent developments in South Africa. Texts of those statements have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Denis Healey: First, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I must say that it is rather oddly balanced. In a statement that covers three

pages, there are three lines on the proposals for the establishment of pharmacists and only three words on the historic tragedy of South Africa.
On the detail of the statement, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the dogged pragmatism with which he once again swept up the debris caused by the eruption of Krakatoa Kate in Milan. I hope that the prospects for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference—on which the Prime Minister has made, as he pointed out, totally contradictory statements within a space of a few hours—will be more successful than the lamentable proceedings in Milan.
On the mandate for negotiating a central American cooperation agreement, do the Government propose to join the French and other European Governments in providing troops to monitor a possible agreement on Nicaragua that is now being sought by the Contadora group?
On co-operation on terrorism, have the Government finally agreed to return to Italy persons convicted of terrorism in Italy who are now living freely in Pimlico?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer two or three questions on South Africa? Why did he oppose the proposal by his colleagues to make the Community code of conduct for companies in South Africa mandatory, especially as the British company BTR grossly violated that agreement in recent months? Why did he oppose an immediate end to the declaration of the emergency that has turned South Africa into a stone trooper state? How can he reconcile the absolute and unconditional opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa that he expressed in the House this afternoon and in his speech last night with his formal undertaking on Monday to consider sanctions if South Africa did not make progress in a reasonable period of time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I always accept congratulations from the right hon. Gentleman with a very high degree of reservation. I am glad that he welcomed the work now being put in hand for the intergovernmental conference that will commence at the beginning of September.
On central America, the Contadora group meeting has only recently come to an end and there was no consideration of the particular proposal that he mentioned at the meeting between Foreign Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the extradition of possible terrorist suspects to other countries——

Mr. Healey: They have been convicted of terrorist crimes.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This matter would have to be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the light of applications in accordance with whatever extradition treaties might exist.
On South Africa, the suggestion that there was a proposal to make the European Community code on industrial companies mandatory was not discussed. between us on Monday. That code is under review in the Community to see in what way and to what extent it may or may not need to be reviewed.
My colleagues all agreed with the conclusion set out in the communiqué, that the state of emergency should be brought to an end, but all agreed that it would not be suitable or sensible to include any particular epithet about the immediacy with which that should be done.
Our position on sanctions is as I have stated it several times in the House this afternoon.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the Government's broad approach to new treaty-making in relation to the intergovernmental conference to take place in September? Is it the Government's broad aim to go for a new treaty on political co-operation of the kind, for instance, that the Dutch Government are now proposing, or merely to propose the reorganisation of procedures to improve political cooperation? Is it the Government's broad belief that the treaty of Rome requires amendment, in particular the common agricultural policy clauses in the treaty, or is it still the view of the Government that that area does not need amendment at this time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the first point raised by my right hon. Friend is that it has been our view—the view that we put forward at Milan—that political co-operation has been an area of considerable success for the Community. For that reason we put forward at Milan proposals for a binding agreement on political cooperation between the member states of the Community. Those proposals, alongside the Franco-German proposal, are now being considered with a view to securing agreement on that point, which is distinct from the treaty of Rome.
The answer to my right hon. Friend's question about the treaty of Rome is that we put forward proposals at Milan for achieving the reforms necessary in the working of the Community which would not have needed any treaty amendment. We remain to be convinced that treaty amendment is necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall be going to the conference ready to consider what is put before us so as to reach conclusions best likely to help the effective working of the Community.

Sir Russell Johnston: I, too, congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the positive approach that he has adopted towards the intergovernmental conference in Luxembourg, which compares favourably with the obstructive attitude that the Government first adopted towards the conference being held at all. Like the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an assurance that he will give priority to ensuring that the decision-making process of the Community is improved, even if that requires treaty amendment, and that he will not stand on any sort of nationalistic dignity as, sadly, he is urged to do by occupants of the Opposition Front Bench?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I welcome the general encouragement offered by the hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept his contrast between our attitude at Milan and our attitude at the meeting earlier this week. Our objective throughout is to achieve effective changes in the decision-making procedures of the Community because we believe that it is an essential British interest for the Community to be able to function more effectively and for the United Kingdom to be in the mainstream of developments to that end. When we come to consider whether treaty changes are necessary, we shall approach that with those objectives in mind. We have taken the view that the case for such changes has not been made out. We believe that the proposals that we put forward would have enabled us to

make progress quickly and effectively at Milan. That remains our objective and that is the way in which we shall consider the matter.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As there was a widespread welcome from hon. Members on this side of the House for the Prime Minister's vote against the conference, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it really is the position now that the Government have an open mind on treaty amendments and on the question of a draft European union proposal, and whether they might be willing to surrender unanimity on the vital article 100, which deals with directives affecting every industry and every job in Britain?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to say that article 100 covers a wide range of matters, and I believe that every member state in the Community would have substantial reservations about applying changes in that respect on anything like a universal basis. Similarly, every member state in the Community recognises the reality of the provisions which enable account to be taken of vital national interests.
A decision has been taken to hold the intergovernmental conference. It therefore makes sense, if we are to promote the interests of this country, for us to take a positive and constructive part in that conference. It remains our view that the changes we wanted could have been achieved without treaty amendment, but we must consider now exactly what is put forward, recognising the need to achieve agreed conclusions at the end of it——

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why is my right hon. and learned Friend being obstinate about this?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg my hon. Friend to contain his anxious interest in the subject for a moment longer. We must not shrink from the objective set out in the treaty of Rome to achieve ever closer union between the peoples of Europe——

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Ah.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —a goal that was laid down as long ago as 1946 by Winston Churchill.

Mr. Eric Deakins: If political cooperation works so well in the EC, why is a binding agreement necessary? However, if there is to be a binding agreement, why should it take the form of a draft treaty, with the whole panoply of subsequent legislation in member countries, rather than of an intergovernmental arrangement which could then become a Community treaty by virtue of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We put forward a proposal for an agreement between the member states on the subject of political co-operation because we thought it sensible to set out more clearly and effectively the arrangements for consultation with a view to more effective political cooperation. The practice thus far has worked well and we considered it important to make the commitment more effective along the lines that we suggested. That would take the form of an agreement between the member states of the Community — an international agreement, a treaty, as it were—but a separate agreement distinct from that contained in the treaty of Rome.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that through his skill and imperturbability he has won the compliments of the House, in particular of the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and that he therefore has complete freedom of manoeuvre —[Interruption.]—to negotiate such agreements as in his judgment will be to the long-term advantage of this country in the European Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute, endorsed by the enthusiastic applause of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and I understand his view of the way in which we should approach the matter. We shall seek to reach conclusions which will promote the interests of this country which are entirely compatible with advancing the interest of the European Community as a whole.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Foreign Secretary at all perturbed by the situation which has arisen following the German veto of proposals to deal with the European grain surpluses? Have there been any further discussions in the Council about the situation, and what is the British Government's position on the issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The future of grain prices was considered not by the Foreign Affairs Council but by the Agricultural Council——

Mr. Home Robertson: What about the veto?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and the way in which the German Government conducted their case in relation to cereals prices served as a clear demonstration of the reality in the Community that account must be taken of each country's vital national interests. We need to find a way of doing that which will enable us to advance and not retard the general process of effective co-operation in the Community.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The House must be glad that the 1986 framework for Community expenditure has now been settled, even though we know that it can subsequently be increased by majority vote of the Council of Ministers. What will the total be for 1986? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it represents no greater increase than is allowed in domestic public expenditure? Does he agree that the strictures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public expenditure are as valid in Europe as they are at home?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the case for ensuring that finance determines expenditure and not vice versa, which I uttered in my first Budget speech and which President Delors uttered in one of his early contributions to the proceedings of the Community, is equaly important in both places. I am glad to say that the Commission's 1986 budget proposals for agriculture show an increase of only 2·5 per cent., excluding enlargements, within the guidelines required by budget discipline.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I assume that there was no discussion on international famine, but the statement on South Africa was less than robust. Is it not a fact that it contained no reference to that country's recent outrageous invasion of Botswana?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that I am right in saying that every Community country had already made announcements about the Botswana incident. Certainly the

United Kingdom had done so. We condemned the invasion of a Commonwealth country as being without justification, and we did so plainly. I think that every other Community member state took the same view. The international famine was not discussed as it was discussed by aid Ministers a week or so ago.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us are rather puzzled by the growing gap that seems to be opening up between the Foreign Office and No. 10 Downing street? Does he recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister denounced the intergovernmental conference as unnecessary? However, we seem now to be approaching it with an open mind on every subject with almost unseemly enthusiasm. Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that on 2 July my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked her colleagues in the House not to use the phrase "European union" as it was so confusing, yet we are hearing an endorsement of it this afternoon? Surely we should get our own act together before we go to the European conference.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend must retain a sense of perspective about these matters. Both the Prime Minister and I went to Milan with the clear view that we could make the necessary changes without proceeding to the further step of an intergovernmental conference. We thought that the changes necessary to promote progress in the Community, which is of great importance, could there have been made. The majority of our partners took the opposite view and an intergovernmental conference is now to take place. The progress that needs to be achieved is still just as necessary and that is why we want to attend the conference to achieve that progress. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 2 July that we must go to the conference and consider what is put before us.
I did not use the phrase "European union" in an earlier reply. I reminded the House that the treaty of Rome itself commits us to ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. If Europe is to achieve effective exploitation of its technological resources and success in reducing unemployment within the Community, we need to achieve closer co-operation on a range of matters throughout the Community. Those who do not recognise that deceive themselves about Britain's future.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When the Foreign Affairs Council discussed central America, did it take the opportunity to condemn the American trade embargo on Nicaragua and to review the existing aid and trade agreements between Europe and central America especially Nicaragua, to ensure that the effect of the United States trade embargo can be minimised by increasing trade with Europe, especially medical products and important technical components that are needed for many of Nicaragua's industries?
Finally, did the Ministers take time to condemn President Reagan's statement that Nicaragua is a haven for terrorists? That assertion has been proved to be completely wrong by every journalist and every informed observer who has been in Managua recently.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Foreign Affairs Council did not consider every aspect which appeals to the hon. Gentleman's prejudices.

Mr. Corbyn: Just answer the question.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We concluded a negotiating mandate for agreement with the nine countries of central America, covering economic, commercial and development co-operation. The Council has taken account frequently of the views of countries engaged in the Contadora process, to the effect that a number of countries in central America, including Nicaragua, need to cease the process of contributing to the destabilisation of their neighbours.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with our Community partners in the broader context Britain's possible entry of the European monetary system? Does he share with me the grave disappointment of many Members of this place that such little progress has been made to build on the Venice declaration? Does he accept that the historical tragedy, so-called, in South Africa pales into insignificance when we consider what could happen in the middle east?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important for the countries of the Community to continue to contribute as closely together as they can to the advancement of the peace process in the middle east. One of the important features of the Venice declaration is that it has helped to condition a largely common approach to what is necessarily a step-by-step process.
We already belong to the European monetary system. Our attitude towards participation in the exchange rate mechanism remains that we shall do so when the time is right.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the net effect of the Council's proposals on the supply of pharmacists in the United Kingdom? Perhaps the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary will tell him that Lothian Members have been greatly upset by the closure of the distinguished department of pharmacy at the Heriot-Watt university. We have been lectured by Sir Peter Swynnerton-Dyer to the effect that it had to be done because, among other things, there was a surplus of pharmacists.
Secondly, the Secretary of State for Scotland is well aware of the interests of Hewlett Packard and Nippon Electric in semiconductors. What has been said to the French and Germans about the way in which they cut corners on the COCOM arrangements while we remain pristine pure, greatly to the disadvantage of British industry? Were the COCOM arrangements discussed? If not, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the report of the debate on exports to China which took place last week, in which some Conservative Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and I had a good deal to say about the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: For the second time this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has made a lengthy intervention. I shall try to benefit from studying the various topics to which he has drawn my attention.
The effect of the directive is to extend employment opportunities both ways by including the right of establishment of pharmacists throughout the Community, which I think is a sensible response to the hon. Gentleman's first question.
It is proposed that the tariff level on semiconductors should be reduced. These items constitute a product and

an industrial component and a reduced tariff is likely to contribute to increased industrial competitiveness in the United Kingdom.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising in their places, provided that they are brief.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can respond to a scenario——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not a scenario; that worries me.

Mr. Marlow: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider a brief scenario, Mr. Speaker. If there were to be a treaty amendment which would allow directives to be put through without unanimity, and if my right hon. and learned Friend were against a certain directive which he had to bring before the House to enact in British law, what would he do in those circumstances?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My answer to that scenario is that I am not obliged to answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the EEC institutions might cure unemployment in the United Kingdom. If it is possible for Governments to do that, why cannot the Government reduce unemployment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We in Europe spend as much on civil research in high technology industries per head as that which is spent in Japan and the United States. We are able to exploit that investment a great deal less effectively than those countries. That is because there is insufficient openness and unity in the European market for the products of high technology industries.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: More public expenditure? Are we all Socialists now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am talking in neither case about public expenditure, which is another obsession of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Our net civil expenditure per head on civil research—public and private—is as high as it is in Japan and the United States, but we get less for it. We shall not be able to exploit our investment effectively until we achieve greater unity in the European Community.

Mr. Eric Forth >(Mid-Worcestershire): Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the agenda for the intergovernmental conference has been finalised and that there will be no late additions to it? What voting procedures will be used at the conference? How will the conference's recommendations be determined? What criteria will my right hon. and learned Friend use to judge the extent to which the House will support the Government's attitude at that conference? Will he give an undertaking that he will make a statement in the House before giving any irrevocable commitment at that conference?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A number of proposals for the conference have already been put forward. We are awaiting concrete proposals from partners as a basis for discussion, and we shall then consider how we should respond. The conference, which is constituted under article 236, has to reach conclusions by common accord. In order to put those conclusions into effect, endorsement


by the Parliament of every member state of the European Community must be given. The House will have ample opportunities to consider these matters. We shall be bound by the same entirely proper constraints as other members. I shall bear in mind, when considering how we will react to a particular proposal, the enthusiastic support that my hon. Friend always gives me for any sensible proposal.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of his colleagues would agree with this morning's Daily Telegraph leader which says that the EEC Foreign Ministers have given the "wrong response" to the situation in South Africa? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the article was accurate in quoting him as having had "misgivings" about the statement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he did not go along with all the recommendations of the Foreign Ministers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the statement, which resulted from consideration by the representatives of the 10 member states seeking to achieve agreement, represents something to which each of the Ministers present at the meeting had contributed. The statement was agreed by all the Ministers present. The statement is important, in that it represents a common view on the position in South Africa. It is important for the statement to be part of the foundation of Britain's approach to the problem.

Mr. Robert Adley: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member rise when I said that I would call the four hon. Members who were standing?

Mr. Adley: I was provoked into rising. I was sitting here quietly.

Mr. Speaker: Go on, then.

Mr. Adley: Following the question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will my right hon. and learned Friend take the time during the recess to read the Adjournment debate in 1975 about COCOM and sales of Harrier aircraft to China? I support what the hon.

Member for Linlithgow said about this. It is about time that Britain and Europe put their interests first rather than continually following the lines set by the United States Government who do precisely what they think is in the interests of their manufacturers.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the proceedings will soon draw to a close, as I am anxious that my holiday reading should not be completely overloaded.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that his Government's policy remains the policy that was unanimously adopted by the House on 28 June 1985 and that it will remain our policy throughout the intergovernmental conference in October? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have an open mind on the Dooge committee's recommendations on co-decision making between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament? What will be the outcome of that openness? What proposals will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take to Luxembourg to reduce effectively the preponderance of Community expenditure on agriculture and do something about distributing the Community's assets to bring about the economic regeneration of Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive insight into the fact that the Community's assets can be used for the constructive regeneration of Europe. I welcome his acknowledgment of the importance of curtailing the percentage spent on agriculture. As I said in an earlier answer, that is one of the measures achieved by the framework and guidelines that have been laid down so far.
On many occasions we have put forward the argument —it has been supported by many of our partners—that co-decision making could easily be a prescription for no decision making. Any increase in the powers of the European Parliament would require a change in the treaty and would have to be endorsed by each national Parliament. For that reason, we have been arguing that Parliament could play a more positive role within its existing powers. We think that that is the approach best able to command the support of all member states.

Suicide Precautions (Glenochil)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the report of the working group on suicide precautions at Glenochil young offenders institution and detention centre which has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses. I have also laid copies of the determinations of the Sheriff Principal in the cases of Angus Boyd and Derek Harris.
In November 1984, following a recommendation by the Sheriff Principal, after a fatal accident inquiry, I set up an independent working group under the chairmanship of Dr. Derek Chiswick, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh hospital, with the following remit:
To review the precautionary procedures adopted at Glenochil Young Offenders Institution and Glenochil Detention Centre to identify and supervise inmates who might be regarded as suicide risks; and to make recommendations.
I asked Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues to expedite the report, and I am most grateful to them for completing their work by the end of June.
This is an important report on a subject which has generated a good deal of understandable public concern. It makes a considerable number of recommendations, the majority of which I am ready to accept, although some will require more detailed examination. There are, however, a number of recommendations that I cannot accept. As I cannot in the time available today give a detailed response to all the recommendations, I have laid with the report a paper which sets out my initial response to it.
I should remind the House that procedures to identify and care for vulnerable and inadequate offenders, who may have genuinely suicidal tendencies, must be a vitally important feature of any penal institution. Nevertheless, these are a tiny minority of the inmates. We must not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of custody is the deprivation of liberty as a punishment. The inmates at Glenochil are there because they have offended against society and require custodial sentences and rehabilitation. They include many hard and brutal offenders. About half of those in the young offenders institution are serving sentences of between three years and life for particularly serious offences. The authorities at Glenochil have to manage their custody as well as that of a comparatively small number of vulnerable youths.
I wish to refer to some of the detailed points made in the report. The report's broad conclusions are, I am pleased to note, in accord with the recent finding by the Sheriff Principal, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry into the death in April of Derek Harris, that there is no evidence that the regimes operated at Glenochil or the actions of staff were responsible for any of the seven deaths that have taken place since 1981—only three of the seven deaths were determined as deliberate suicides. In submitting the report Dr. Chiswick states that the working group had been impressed by the dedication of the governor and his staff and that the recommendations made in the report imply no criticism of the staff at Glenochil.
The working group acknowledges that, no matter what steps may be taken to prevent suicides, there is no guarantee that these measures will be successful. It considers that the aim should be to achieve a proper

balance between procedures that reduce risk to a minimum and yet are compatible with an acceptable way of life in a penal establishment.
The report says that, in relation to the young offenders institution, where all but two of the deaths have occurred, the majority of inmates serve their sentences in a purposeful manner and that the problems are attributable largely to a few inmates who behave aggressively towards their fellows. Such aggression is impossible to prevent, without stopping all association amongst young offenders who mostly serve their sentences without difficulty and cooperate with staff.
The working group criticises the procedures whereby inmates thought to be suicide risks are kept in what is known as strict suicide observation for lengthy periods. I remind the House that those procedures have been in use in penal establishments in Scotland for many years. The procedures involve observation being maintained on an inmate in a cell at 15 minute intervals, day and night. All clothing, bedding and furniture which could be used to cause self-injury may be replaced with clothing and bedding of canvas and with cardboard furniture. No one likes using those measures, but in Glenochil they have been effective to the extent that no inmate has committed suicide while under strict observation. Indeed, the two most recent deaths at Glenochil occurred after the inmates concerned were removed from strict suicide observation, and, in the case of Angus Boyd, the Sheriff Principal commented that death might have been avoided if he had not been removed from strict suicide observation. That illustrates how delicate and complex is the question of caring for these unfortunate individuals. None the less, I accept that the use of those precautions for other than extremely short periods is undesirable in relation to young offenders.
The working group offers advice on identifying possible suicide risks, and makes a number of recommendations on how inmates who are mentally disturbed or vulnerable in some other way may be managed. I wholeheartedly accept the important recommendation of using a team approach involving all the professionals and prison staff to counsel inmates and to minimise the risks of suicide. That is the general direction in which we intend to go in the follow up to the report. Indeed, some of the reports's recommendations have already been met in whole or in part by measures taken since the death of Derek Harris in April. Work has now been completed on a secure hospital facility at Glenochil, consisting of a ward and a single cell, so that strict medical observation can be provided in appropriate cases. In addition, immature and vulnerable inmates requiring a more closely supervised supportive regime are now housed in "D" hall of the young offenders institution, or transferred to Carrick house at Polmont young offenders institution.
Some recommendations have staffing and resource implications, and will require careful consideration. There will also have to be consultation with the staff associations and other interested bodies. Others create problems of adapting existing structures. Recommendations of this longer-term type will need to be examined carefully so that the custody and care of inmates is not put at risk in the short term.
In a number of respects the working group has gone beyond its remit and discussed issues affecting the overall management of establishments and the prison service as a


whole which, as a small, specifically qualified group, it was not constituted to comment on. A minority of the working group felt that, such was the aura of suicide permeating Glenochil, the only solution lay in its temporary closure. I concur with the view of the majority, who rejected that idea.
I trust that the working group's findings, taken together with the determinations of Sheriff Principal Taylor, will be accepted by hon. Members and by the general public as refuting any suggestion that the unfortunate deaths which have taken place at Glenochil are attributable to the regimes, particularly that of the detention centre, or the behaviour of staff. There is not a shred of evidence to support those allegations.
My hope now is that the governor and staff of Glenochil will be left to get on with their difficult and demanding task, and that the institution will be afforded an opportunity to settle down after recent events, and to make the useful changes which I have accepted from the recommendations in this report.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I add my thanks to Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues for their work. The important report takes a careful and detailed look at the background to a tragic series of deaths, which cost seven young lives at the Glenochil complex. The Opposition's doubts centre on the nature of the regime and the way in which the system operates, and should not be taken to impugn the commitment or integrity of the staff there.
The Secretary of State's approach, as instanced in the statement, has been rather negative and, at times, sadly, a little unfeeling. There is an important distinction between saying that an offender may go to prison as a punishment and saying that he goes to be punished. The Secretary of State has ignored the widespread feeling that the regime for young offenders in Scotland is inflexible and rigid, and does little to rehabilitate and support young men who, in every sense, are at risk. It smacks of complacency to say that
There is not a shred of evidence
to suggest that the system contributed to any of the deaths, as the Secretary of State said.
Is it accurate to talk of a "tiny minority" as being a genuine suicide risk when, during the past 18 months, 123 inmates at the detention centre and 132 at the young offenders institution have been on strict suicide observation? In 1984, 7 and 10 per cent. respectively of the total number of inmates in the two centres of the complex were under that sort of observation. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called a "tiny minority".
I welcome the specific recommendations on suicide prevention that have been accepted, especially those for more psychiatric support and medical help. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the recommendations made on contact between inmates and their families, which, with ingenuity and imagination, could be put into practice, but which are heavily qualified in the report that the Secretary of State has laid? Most important, will the Secretary of State give some thought to the implied criticisms of the system that can be found in the report? I am thinking of the reference to a lack of a distinct philosophy at the young offenders institution and the suggestion that the regime there has drifted too close to that in the detention centre, the recommendation that there is a need for a policy development unit, and, above all,

the revelation, to which the Secretary of State referred but which does not appear in the report. that a body of opinion in the working party thought that the position was so serious that the only possible short-term solution was a temporary closure of the Glenochil complex.
Will the Secretary of State note that the Opposition resent the implication that Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues acted improperly by going beyond their remit? They had a clear duty to state their wider anxieties. Every hon. Member who studies the matter impartially will feel that they did so in a dignified and restrained fashion.
Will the Secretary of State give urgent consideration to recommendation 63 for a review of the criminal justice system for under 21-year-olds in Scotland? It is time that we had a long hard look at the system, which, for example. offers only one option in terms of a custodial sentence between 28 days and 4 months. There must surely be a case for a system in which a court sentences a young offender to a specific custodial period, but in which his placement is a matter for a balanced assessment based on his individual circumstances.
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the wider inquiry, to which I have referred and which is the subject of recommendation 63, has not been ruled out? Will he go further and make it clear that he will be prepared to set up such an inquiry because there is so much support in Dr. Chiswick's report for the view that our approach in Scotland to young offenders often lacks sympathy and imagination, and, in some cases, can be counterproductive in practice?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the staff at Glenochil, which I warmly endorse. They have a difficult task and have done it well. I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my response is in any way negative or unfeeling. It is extremely positive. More than half of the recommendations are already being implemented, which is a quick response.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman in his denial of the fact that there is no shred of evidence that the regimes are responsible for any of these tragic deaths. That has been investigated by the Sheriff Principal on several occasions in fatal accident inquiries. It has been carefully looked for by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in his annual reports, and now it has been examined particularly carefully by Dr. Chiswick and his group. In each case they have come to one conclusion without doubt, which is that, however sad the events, and however serious their causes, the regime has not been responsible for them. We must accept the facts put to us by that series of inquiries.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of greater psychiatric help, and I take his point about trying to improve contact with families to the greatest extent possible. We shall certainly do what we can to improve that.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is a reference in paragraph 6.4 to a minority who took the view that major reconstruction was the only solution to the problems in the regime. However, that was rejected by the majority. We should look hard at that suggestion because to break the regime into small units would be counterproductive to the objective of trying to get young offenders rehabilitated and to undertake more activities generally with their fellows in the institution.
Referring to two other recommendations, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the establishment of a policy development unit. I confirm that we shall look at that carefully. It was considered in the internal management review in 1978 and rejected, but that does not mean that it should not be reconsidered now. I shall certainly do that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to changes in the criminal justice system. We keep it under constant review. Much change is taking place at the moment following the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in which major changes were made. Partly as a result of that, the population of young offenders in our young offenders institutions has dropped by about 20 per cent. A halt in that progress while another review takes place would not be helpful. It is much better to proceed on the basis of the suggestions of the Stewart committee and so on, which we intend to do.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of the report will be warmly welcomed, particularly the implementation of the majority recommendations to ensure that there is effective teamwork among those professionally qualified to see that suicides do not happen? What is my right hon. Friend's policy towards the minority recommendations, which were not accepted? Do many of them remain under consideration?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to put his finger on the main theme recommendation in the report, which is that those difficult cases should be dealt with very much by a team of people of different disciplines who can give individual special treatment to those cases. I am sure that that is the right way to go. Some of the recommendations that were not fully accepted are still being assessed for further consideration and possibly consultation with other interests involved. I have not been able to accept a small number of recommendations, and I have made that clear.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Chiswick inquiry acknowledged that the brief that he gave the committee was too narrow for the situation that it was asked to investigate, and that it has rightly put forward a much broader set of proposals? However, does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that his response has been rather selective in picking on things that seemed to support his approach, which appears to have been complacent throughout? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, for example, he has resisted anything that implies spending significant amounts of money on the buildings or the staff?
When I visited Glenochil, I was impressed by the work of the staff and the governor, and by their dedication. However, the fact is that they have to deal with young people who are referred to them. They acknowledge that frequently young people who are referred to them are unsuitable for the young offenders institution. At the back of the report there is a list of 32 cases of youngsters who suffered from broken ankles or some physical or mental disability, making it impossible for them to cope with the regime. Therefore, does the Secretary of State not recognise that a wider inquiry into the whole policy needs to be taken into account, as well as the screening process for young people being referred to such institutions?

Mr. Younger: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the remit given to the committee being too narrow. However, it was a direct response to the suggestion of the Sheriff Principal, who had conducted the fatal accident inquiries and suggested that such an inquiry would be suitable.
When I replied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) I did not say that I implied no criticism of the Chiswick committee for, in some respects, recommending beyond what it was directly asked to do. It is not a question of criticising the committee, nor is it a question of the committee expecting me not to mention that if I consider that the committee has done so.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to injuries. I understand that those people were transferred from the detention centre. With any group of young people who are active and have problems, there are bound to be some accidents at times. However, the atmosphere of the regime has been applauded by Dr. Chiswick and his committee as humane and reasonable. That is important for everyone concerned, not least the staff.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I congratulate the committee on the speedy and thorough way in which it underook its review of the procedures at Glenochil and the unfortunate circumstances that led to the suicides. Will the Secretary of State tell the House the size of the minority that recommended temporary closure of Glenochil? How does he intend to approach the assertion by some members of the committee that, because of the aura of suicide hanging over that establishment, it will be difficult for it to return to normality, and it may be left open to the copycat suicide which, unfortunately, is a significant part of that mode of behaviour? As the suicides have occurred and as the report does not completely answer questions about the methods by which they could be reduced, what constructive proposals do the Government have in mind to deal with that aura?

Mr. Younger: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot tell him the size of the minority, but I refer him to paragraph 6.4.2, in which there is mention of a minority, but we are not told its size.
With regard to atmosphere, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is one of the most baffling, difficult and distressing features of the case. I take it as a serious point to which all the staff concerned must address themselves with great care. It is not easy because the special cases who might be suicide risks require specialised care and treatment. It is important that the team approach to dealing sensitively with those people not only, as I hope, prevents any further suicides or accidents but tries to tackle the aura of suicide, which must be eliminated if the institution is to be successful.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Secretary of State has made a long statement, and this is a complicated and detailed report that we shall want to study closely. It is already clear that the impression that the Secretary of State gave in his statement, that, according to Chiswick, there are no problems at Glenochil, does not accurately represent the views of the committee. For example, the right hon. Gentleman quoted perfectly rightly the tribute that Dr. Chiswick paid the staff at Glenochil, but he did not quote Dr. Chiswick's statement in the same paragraph that


we think that the procedures we suggest can only be operated in the context of more fundamental developments at Glenochil. We consider that these are necessary to ameliorate some key institutional problems which we believe to exist.
There was nothing in the Secretary of State's statement to acknowledge those key problems.
The recommendations on the broader issues were meant to tackle or at least study the problems. For example, there is criticism of lack of managerial and medical guidance to the staff at Glenochil from the headquarters of the Scottish prison service.
Unless the Secretary of State takes those criticisms seriously, he will find that there will be continuing anxiety about Glenochil and how we deal with young offenders generally in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's statement, with its extremely complacent tone, unfortunately will in no way allay those anxieties.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a long and complex report. Inevitably, I have not been able to respond on every point. My approach is entirely one of wishing to meet, if possible, as many of the recommendations as possible. We are dealing with a highly serious matter which the committee was set up to examine. I hope that it will at least reassure the right hon. Gentleman to know that I do not take it lightly. I should not like anything that I have said to suggest that I am in any way satisfied that everything should be left as it is. The recommendations in the report were constructive. While saying that there was no cause to blame the staff or the regime for the tragic events, it made many constructive responses. I have done my best and will continue to do so to see that the recommendations are implemented.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of guidance to management. He can make a judgment on that, too. I refer him to appendix D, which sets out the guidance that the prison management department has given. If the right hon. Gentleman studies that in due course, he can see whether he thinks that the guidance is deficient. If so, of course, we shall be prepared to consider that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State said that many people at the institution were on the suicide watch. Is he satisfied that there is adequate psychiatric care for people before they are sent to the institution? In view of the serious events that have taken place, would it not be wiser not to send to Glenochil those who have been identified as having suicidal tendencies?

Mr. Younger: One of the recommendations is that psychiatric facilities should be stepped up. I have accepted that recommendation and we shall do the best we can. Assessments of people before they go to the institution are already made carefully and will be made as thoroughly as possible in the future. Severely disturbed people who go to the institution are treated quite differently from each other. I hope that the team approach will foster individual, sensitive and careful treatment in the interests of patients as well as of everyone else.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that seven deaths out of 7,000 inmates during four and a half years are not acceptable and cannot be regarded as a coincidence? Are we to conclude that the reason is still a mystery? If so, would it not be more prudent to accept the views of the minority and, at least temporarily, close down Glenochil?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree. We all realise that this is a most serious problem, and we have looked in all of the reports and inquiries for a shred of a suggestion that a major change in the regime could have prevented the deaths. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would have acted immediately on any such shred of a suggestion, but there is none, so we must take the determinations of the sheriff in the fatal accident inquiries at face value. They give as complete an explanation of the deaths as is ever likely to be possible — each is different, but none appears to have resulted from the regime. We have to accept the facts as presented to us and to act upon them. To do otherwise would be wrong.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most worrying aspect of his response to this important and careful report is his continued misrepresentation of its central message, which is not, as he said, that the regime is in no way responsible, but that there is something seriously wrong? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to paragraph 10.4 of the report which says:
The young offenders institution was built as a high security establishment…Less emphasis appears to have been given to planning for the needs of a range of offenders…We consider that Glenochil may have been disadvantaged by an apparent lack of foresight in planning and development.
In those circumstances, it is patently misleading to the House and the country to suggest that the Chiswick inquiry has not found matters which seriously require further investigation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alliance parties fully endorse the recommendation of the Chiswick committee, and of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that there should be a review of the criminal justice system for under 21-year-olds in Scotland? Will he undertake to ensure that that is put in hand?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's first question dealt with two issues. I, Dr. Chiswick, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the sheriffs in their fatal accident inquiries have not said that the regime or the detention centre is perfect and incapable of change, but that we have found no evidence to suggest that the regime caused or contributed to the deaths. That is an important determination. If it were otherwise, we should all be quite justified to take it extremely seriously.
The second point, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring, is that many recommendations require follow-up action. Some are quite sweeping and far reaching. I shall address them in a constructive spirit and accept as many as possible. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have expected a better result than that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the identification of vulnerable people is essential. I am also sure that he agrees that parental visits and parents can play an important part in detecting those who are at risk. May we look forward to the rapid implementation of recommendations 54 to 60? Psychiatric training— recommendation 17 — is an essential ingredient in the detection of those at risk. The same is true for the Kardex system— recommendation 21— which is used in all acute psychiatric units, especially for those prone to suicide. May we have an early implementation of those recommendations?

Mr. Younger: I have accepted recommendation 21. I hope that it will be properly followed up. As for visits, it is desirable to have as open a regime for relatives as possible. However, there are some resource problems such as overcrowding at visiting time. We shall have to see whether we can improve that. We cannot envisage a 100 per cent. open visiting system at all times. I have to decline to implement that part of the recommendation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is it significant that the Scottish Prison Officers Association does not appear to have given evidence? Is it not possible that it would have reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the importance of taking away an offender's freedom and of the possibility of personal fulfilment, self correction and realisation of potential? The fact that a minority of the committee felt that it was necessary to produce their own report and that some went beyond the committee's remit must influence the right hon. Gentleman into considering at least the possibility of a much wider inquiry.

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point, although I am willing, when implementing as many of the recommendations as possible, to make further studies or determinations as they appear necessary. The Scottish Prison Officers Association did not submit any evidence officially because it felt that, as it was not represented on the inquiry, it should not do so. There are several recommendations on which I would want to have consultations with it before implementation. I clearly and openly acknowledged in a statement last year that the role of Scottish prison officers involves personal development, personal relationships and rehabilitation, not just custody.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Arising out of my constituency experience, will the individual treatment about which the Secretary of State rightly talked extend to the problem of visiting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised, especially when there are problems of step parents or no parents? Could it be extended in some cases to brothers or even friends? On paragraph 6.5.1 regarding fragile personalities, is the recommendation for existing screening proposals to be improved acceptable, and what will the Secretary of State do about it? In regard to paragraph 9.8, should there be further medical examinations after the first week?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first question. We would like to extend visits as far as we can, but there must be a progression of visiting during a patient's stay in the regime. We hope that it can be done in a structured way so that there is not too much disturbance. I must be brutally realistic, however. There must be considerable control of visiting because it is a sad fact that almost all of the contraband that is brought into such institutions comes during visiting. That presents a bit of an inhibition to too wide a visiting regime. I accept that screening has to be looked at more carefully, particularly screening before people come to these institutions to make sure that they are suitable for them. We are looking very hard at the relevant recommendations.

Mr. Dewar: I return to recommendation 63 and the possibility of a wider inquiry. The Secretary of State gives the impression in his statement that he practically rules it out of court. He made it clear that he wishes merely to proceed on the present basis. If he will turn to his summary of recommendations and initial responses which have been laid today he will see that in response to recommendation 63 he refers to the Stewart committee on alternatives to prosecution and to certain proposals for intermittent custody that have been made by the Home Secretary. Finally, he says:
When these are complete the Government will give consideration to the need for a review.
That is considerably more optimistic than what he appeared to say today. In case he should have given the wrong impression, will he confirm that he will consider the possibility of a review? Will he also say when that consideration will take place? We shall want to return to this issue.

Mr. Younger: I apologise if I gave too gloomy a view of that recommendation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the point I was trying to make was not that I would rule out further consideration of these matters but that we should not stop in its tracks the very good progress that is being made on sentencing. The inquiry arose from this series of seven tragic events, to which we must respond positively in every way that we can. However, we should not ignore the very real progress that has been made in the treatment of young offenders. The changes to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 were widely welcomed. There has been a population reduction of about 20 per cent. In young offenders institutions. This is partly the result of the changes in sentencing policy and the abolition of the borstal course.
I accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am not saying that a further inquiry may not be necessary but that we should allow the present progress to proceed. When we know the Government's recommendations on the Stewart committee's report on alternatives to prosecution, we shall examine whether a further inquiry is needed.

BILL PRESENTED

PROVISION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS (No. 2)

Mr. David Penhaligon presented a Bill to establish a Rural Youth Affairs Advisory Committee and to define its responsibilities; to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to allow 16-year-olds to drive a motor car on a road provided that it is solely in the course of receiving instruction from an approved driving instructor to amend section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to change of use of dwelling houses in rural areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 October and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

Discrimination

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban discrimination against people because they are single or elderly, or in other specified categories, and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to fill some enormous and surprising gaps in our law which permit discrimination against vast categories and huge numbers of people, discrimination which is intolerable in any decent society. There is discrimination against single people, including single-parent families and the single homeless. There is discrimination against older people, which forces women to retire at 60, whether or not they wish to do so and whether or not the result will be that they are forced into poverty or loneliness, while men are required to soldier on until they are 65, if they wish to receive a pension, irrespective of whether they are fit and without regard to of the number of unemployed people who are desperate for their jobs. There is discrimination particularly in the home and in employment. Finally, there is discrimination that does not permit men to have paternity leave when their wives are having children. This discriminates against the wives just as much as it discriminates against the husbands.
It is a massive array of unacceptable discrimination that is completely unaffected by the law. Although I accept that the law cannot change the ways that people think, it can and must provide a decent and proper framework for any society, including especially our own, which in so many ways is discriminatory and in which people are suffering so greatly.
I have the support of a massive series of organisations, to each of which I pay tribute. They include the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. CHAR, of which I am proud to be a founder and trustee, Gingerbread, which cares for single-parent families, the National Council for One-Parent Families, the Single Homeless Project, the National Council for Carers, CRUSE which looks after the bereaved, Help the Aged, the National Council for the Divorced and Separated. the National Council for the Single Women and Her Dependants, and Shelter. The community should be grateful to all of these organisations which look after people who, in the main, are discriminated against because of the nature of our society.
Curiously enough, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 bans discrimination against people because they are male or female or because they are married but it contains no similar provision to outlaw discrimination against those who are single: whether or not they have ever been married, or whether or not they are widows or widowers. They may be discriminated against while those who are married may not. It is a distinction with neither sense nor compassion.
According to figures that have been supplied to me in written answers, there are today over 11 million single people in this country who are over the age of 16. There are 6,170,000 men and 5,090,000 women. This huge number of people is completely unprotected against discrimination.
There is an immense number of one-parent families. In 1982, there were 930,000 single-parent families who were unprotected by the law. In many cases they were suffering very considerable hardship because of discrimination

against them in housing and in work. If one speaks to their organisations, as I do, and Listens to them, one finds that the difficulties that single parents face in finding private sector housing are often equalled by those which they suffer in the public sector, whose ability to provide accommodation for anybody is shrinking and within which it is always harder for single people to obtain accommodation than it is for those who are married.
An official of CHAR told me this morning that it has no way of knowing how many people are both single and without homes, or how many are living rough or in hostels, or both, but it says that several hundred thousand people are in this position. The provision of housing is bad for all but it is worse for the single. In Leicester, the provision of public sector housing is worsening almost daily. Housing starts have withered away because housing provision has been hacked back by the Government There is less housing for those who need it, although that need is growing among many sections of the population, particularly among those who are on their own and lonely and who tend to be not merely in need of care but of shelter. I pay tribute to Shelter for the work that it does.
Even where there is housing, the rights of single people are not protected by our law. This is weird. When a man and a woman who are not married share accommodation, the law is ludicrous. In the House of Lords decision of Burns v. Burns in 1984, their Lordships considered a man and a woman who had lived together unmarried for 19 years. When their relationship broke up the woman got nothing. The court told her that if she had wanted anything she should have got married. The court did not say that to the man, to the common law husband. It was said to the woman, the so-called common law wife. That area of discrimination was mentioned this week at an American Bar Association meeting, where Dame Margaret Booth made it clear that people who live together could ensure that their property, financial and social security rights were protected only by getting married.
For those who reach the ages of 60 or 65, the differences are even more acute. Men aged 60 are required to continue working, whereas women aged 60 are generally forced into retirement. Such discrimination should be banned. In this area, the United States provision is an excellent guide. In 1967, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was introduced as a federal statute to promote the employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age, and to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment. The Act prohibited employment discrimination against people aged between 40 and 65. Since 1967, the Act has been amended twice. In 1974 its provisions were extended to include federal, state and local government employment, and in 1978 it was amended to extend protection beyond the age of 65, without an age limit for employees of the federal Government, and until the age of 70 for most other workers.
Hon. Members are privileged to serve in the House until any age, depending upon whether they are selected, re-selected or elected. In another place, service can continue into the second century of life. May I pay an affectionate tribute to my father, who served in this House until he was 79 and then for a further 10 years in the other place. Had he been forced into retirement, there is no doubt that he would not have survived. His work would have ceased when he was 65, yet he gave much of his most valuable service after reaching that age.
There is no justification, in a society such as ours, which has vast unemployment, for forcing men who wish to retire to stay at work until they are 65. Nor is it fair to require women who are anxious to stay at work to retire when they are 60. We should reach the position in our society where people are treated equally and, as the American statute says, according to their ability rather than according to their age or sex. People should be encouraged to serve society irrespective of anything but their ability.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Gerry Bermingham, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Ms. Jo Richardson, and Mr. David Marshall.

DISCRIMINATION BILL

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to ban discrimination against people because they are single or elderly, or in other specified categories, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 October and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

Adjournment (Summer)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): On the next business, I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition at the top of page 4818 of the Order Paper and the consequent amendment that goes with it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday 26th July do adjourn until Monday 21st October, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 26th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, in line 1 to leave out 'Friday 26th July' and insert `Tuesday 30th July'.
The Government have now had 15 or 16 hours in which to consider the vote in the House earlier this morning. It was clear from the vote that most hon. Members do not support the Government's decision to implement the top salaries review. The Government's majority was 17—one tenth of its nominal size—and no one can doubt that dozens of Government supporters went into the Government Lobby last night because of loyalty rather than conviction. The 48 Conservative Members who voted with the Opposition, the 40-odd hon. Members who did not vote and those who voted for the Government with understandable reluctance were the result of the House fulfilling its proper constitutional function.
Many hon. Members said that they had visited their constituencies during the week between the announcement of the top salaries decision and the vote on the order last night. They had listened to their constituents and had responded to the undoubted mood of the country. However, as I understand it, the Government intend to proceed with the implementation of the report as though there had been no revolt,, no outcry and no general condemnation of all that they have proposed in the operation of that report.
The Government intend to proceed with the report despite the bitter opposition that they have encountered. The central, crucial reason for that opposition is worth at least a brief repetition. The Government's proposal is opposed simply because it is unfair. It is unfair to ask the low-paid and the average-paid worker to show restraint and at the same time to insist on paying massive increases to the highest-paid public servants, who enjoy advantages that are denied to other sectors of the community. They have complete job security, index-linked pensions, which are almost unknown outside the public service, and a special social status which employment in the private sector does not carry.
The extraordinary fact about the proposals being made in the first place was recorded in the leader in The London Standard today:
To everybody outside the Cabinet the social inequity of these pay awards was immediately apparent.
What is unforgiveable is that, having been told of the conclusion that the awards lacked social equity, having had a week to consider their folly, and having had a vote to demonstrate the opposition to what they initially proposed, the Government intend to go ahead with it as though there had been universal support for their decision at last Thursday's Cabinet meeting.
The opposition from Labour and Conservative Members last night was based, as I have described, on fairness. However, the Government either overlooked——

Mr. Tim Eggar: Fairness?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, and I will explain it to the hon. Gentleman if he does not know what it means.
The Government overlooked or chose to ignore some practical considerations. First, the top salaries award was almost certain to have a damaging effect on pay negotiations in the public sector. If the Cabinet did not realise that when it made the decision, it must have realised it from reading about the reaction to the decision of pay negotiators in the public sector. There is no doubt that the decision to make those massive awards —in two cases, 46 per cent. Increases —has made a settlement of the teachers' dispute substantially more difficult to achieve. If there is disruption in the classrooms when term begins again in September, those who supported the top salaries pay award must take much of the responsibility for it.
Secondly, immense resentment is building up among the local authority manual workers and local authority ancillary workers, many of whose total wages are not even 50 per cent. of the pay awards now proposed. Those are all serious considerations, to which the Government should have given careful thought. I have described them in as moderate language as possible.
They are also serious considerations about which the Prime Minister should have given the House and the country her opinion, for she is the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. This decision was her decision. When it was announced last Thursday, her press officer was telling every newspaper that the Prime Minister supported the report in every line and detail, and had urged her troops to meet criticism head on. However, it was the Prime Minister's duty not simply to say that, but herself to meet that criticism head on, by taking one of the three opportunities provided in the House to defend what is essentially her position.

Mr. Richard Tracey: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal first with the Prime Minister and then with the hon. Gentleman. All that we have heard from the Prime Minister was her answers to questions yesterday, which did not constitute anything like a reasonable response on a serious issue. She has hardly attempted to justify what in anything like rational terms or serious language she has done. She made two points, both of them trivial and neither of them concerned with the merits of the argument that she is supposedly advancing.
The Prime Minister's first point was that it had all been done before. That is wrong. The precedent on which she leaned so heavily yesterday afternoon, that of 1978, was a pay award staged over three pay rounds, which was paralleled by other comparability exercises for the lowest paid public sector workers, and gave an award to the lower-paid sections of the public service. It was not preceded by the intentional depression of earnings in the private sector by the abolition of wages council protections for young workers.
The Government should understand, although I fear that they do not, that perhaps the deepest offence has been caused not simply to those on the Opposition Benches but,

in the country, to people who are basically non-political and are adherents to no political party. It has been caused by the idea that on a Wednesday afternoon some of the poorest paid and least well protected workers in the community — young workers in wages councils industries—should have their protection removed, and the next day enormous pay increases should be endorsed for the public sector.
The Prime Minister was wrong to lean on that precedent, but more important than the error in her argument was the fact that she should choose to use that argument at all. After six years in government, she should have the courage to stand on her own record rather than make bogus comparisons with what happened six, seven or eight years ago. To do so is simply demeaning and, as she demonstrated yesterday afternoon, simply to say, "I may be had but they were worse," no longer gets even a cheer from her Back Benchers.

Mr. Tracey: The right hon. Gentleman obviously considers that he is making a strong case in trying to differentiate between what happened in 1978 when he was a member of the Government who implemented that award, and now. Why, despite the apparent strength of his case, did 38 of his colleagues not come along to support him last night?

Mr. Hattersley: As speakers say in a music hall joke, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it enables me to say what should he said. First, the figure of 38 is conjured out of the air.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: What is the figure?

Mr. Hattersley: Secondly, to have reduced the Government's majority still further, which is all that we could have done, as it was never within our power to defeat the Government, would have meant calling back to the House people whom I am not prepared to call back to the House now or ever because that would mean going back to the bad old habits of the 1960s and 1970s when the sick were required to be here. I was not prepared to do that on the vote of censure in 1979, and I am not prepared to do it now
I am astonished to discover that the best argument that the Government have today is that we should have trounced them more roundly than we did last night. If that is the nature of our crime, it shows how pathetically incapable the Government are of doing what they should be doing in these circumstances. If they had a case on which to build, they should be defending their own proposals rather than making a trivial point about what happened at 2 o'clock this morning.
The Prime Minister's second defence of the Government's position was, as always—this has become her habit over the past six years—to question the motives of her critics. She said that those who opposed what the Government were doing were guilty of cant and humbug. If her accusation is justified, 49 of her supporters voted for humbug last night and more than 40 of her Back Benchers compromised with cant by abstaining.
Those who voted against the report, and certainly those who spoke from the Government Benches, were opposed to the report on a principle, and were not opposed to its timing or tactics. The principle was that of social justice. Sooner or later, the Prime Minister will have to learn that


even some of her supporters are beginning to think that social justice is an important consideration when Government policy is being decided.
The House was entitled to a calm explanation from the Prime Minister, the Minister who took the decision that it was right to increase the pay of the Chief of the Defence Staff by 46 per cent., but that it was not right to approve an extra 1 per cent. to bring the damaging teachers' dispute to an end.
None of these questions has been answered. Instead, we had a typical speech from the Chief Secretary last Friday and an uncharacteristic speech from the Leader of the House yesterday. The Chief Secretary said, in answer to a private notice question, that less fortunate people than the senior civil servants should rejoice at what was being proposed because it offered them, the least fortunate, at least the prospect of winning such glittering prizes.
In the northern wards of my constituency there is 50 per cent. male unemployment. All over it, services and the housing stock are deteriorating and many men and women are suffering the discrimination of the present immigration regulations. The idea that they should rejoice because the Secretary to the Cabinet is to get an extra £23,750 a year is the most bizarre nonsense imaginable.
The Leader of the House behaved in a similarly and —I say this as a compliment—surprisingly unconvincing way yesterday evening. What he said, turning not to his hon. Friends but on them, was, "Do you want such decisions about public sector pay to be decided by politicians?", as if the automatic answer to that question was, "Of course not."
It may be "of course not" for senior civil servants, generals and judges, but it is "of course" for teachers, because the pay of teachers is determined by politicians. The pay of the lowest paid workers in the public service is always determined by politicians, and I do not understand how a distinction can logically be drawn which says that the rich and the privileged must be insulated from the grubby business of politicians deciding how much they should earn, while the poorly paid and those receiving average pay will be subject to Government decisions endorsed by whipped votes in the House of Commons.

Mr. Eggar: .rose——

Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not give way.
Regrettably, the double standard typified by the Leader of the House in his answer yesterday evening is exactly what permeates the order. It is exactly what typifies the response to the report, and exactly what has caused so much resentment in the country. It is doing enormous damage in the country, because the Government are dividing the nation by helping one group and penalising and ignoring another. It would be wholly wrong for this House to adjourn until we have made one last attempt to convince the Government of their error, and that requires the Prime Minister to have the courage to come to the House and defend the decision for which she and she alone is responsible.
It is no good the Prime Minister hiding behind The London Standard bill boards uttering half-veiled threats to resign. It is no good either for the Prime Minister to sit looking menacing on the Front Bench throughout the debate on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order. The Prime Minister has a duty to defend the decision, which was hers

and hers alone. One of the things for which she will be condemned is not just the crass error of making the decision, but lacking the guts to come here and explain why she made it. Let me describe exactly the error made by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman knows about guts. Let him tell us about the Common Market vote.

Mr. Hattersley: In that, I voted against my party. Not only did I vote against my party, but I did not go through the Lobby whining that I might have voted for the other side if circumstances had been rather different. Let me describe the error that the Prime Minister is making.

Mr. Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
Her error is the belief that social justice does not matter. Of course she is right to say that, in simple terms of arithmetic, a huge pay increase to a selected few costs little, while a small pay rise to thousands of nurses, teachers and manual workers costs a great deal. But in these matters arithmetic is not enough. It is not possible in a decent society for the rich and the favoured to be absolved from restraint while other groups are not.

Mr. Eggar: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister does not understand that her policies ought to be characterised by social justice. I should like this House to postpone the Adjournment until we have made one last desperate attempt to teach her that truth, a truth which will destroy this Government.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) lost the vote last night and has moved his amendment with customary bluff and bluster, and with precious little regard to the realities of the difficult and complicated problem of fixing pay for senior public servants. It is a problem which this year has generated a great deal of misunderstanding and widespread public concern. He gave no indication at all about what he would do. Would he totally and completely reject the report? Would he, as appeared to be suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench last night, merely stage the increases over a longer period?
He treats the House with total contempt in that he is not prepared to say what he would do. He attempted to gloss over his own acute embarrassment at having been a member of the Administration who in 1978 agreed to much greater increases. Those increases were of 35 per cent., not the 12·2 per cent. for the Civil Service which he has condemned. He said that the 35 per cent. was staged, as though that were some brilliant feat of political wisdom by the Government of that day. All they did was to implement the proposal in the TSRB report that staging be carried out.
The cost of the right hon. Gentleman's first stage in the financial year 1978–79 was more than the total cost of the staged award that we are now talking about. Not only did his Government stage the award; they backdated it and as


a result a large amount of money was paid. It was not debated, but the Government decision was announced in July of that year and the money was backdated to 1 January.
The right hon. Gentleman has quite a neck to complain about the increase the Government are proposing for senior civil servants which in this financial year amounts to 5·1 per cent. That will be the total amount on the pay bill for 1985–86 of the award which will be implemented by the Government. He spreads about the figure of 46 per cent., but he knows very well that he is quoting the extreme limit. Why does he not talk a little about the other elements in the report, which involve much lower increases and leave some people in the judiciary and some civil servants in London perhaps rather worse off?
It is fairer to talk, as I have done, about averages over the whole field. I do not wish to counter his plucking out of the highest figure by plucking out the lowest figure. My criticism of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues goes wider than the fact that they gloss over what they have done in the past. Early yesterday morning, the deputy leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who I am glad to see in his place, twice quoted wise words used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the debate we had two years ago when were discussing hon. Members' pay.
I should like to contrast what happened two years ago, in July 1983, with what is happening now in July 1985. We had controversial TSRB reports on both occasions. In 1983 the report dealt with hon. Members' salaries and this report of 1985 deals with the pay of senior civil servants, the judiciary and senior military officers. In 1983, Labour, with a few exceptions, argued for full implementation of Plowden, a 31 per cent. increase, when their own and our pay was involved.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: Let me complete the point I am making. In 1983 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House argued the case for restraint and long term staging. The deputy leader of the Liberal party in his speech on that occasion asked:
What is the point of setting up review bodies to determine what our level of pay should be, allowing them to spend large sums in the process, and then ignoring what they recommend?" —[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 288.]
Let the hon. Gentleman remember those words.
What a contrast we see. Most Conservative Members voted for staged and smaller increases in our own pay and for the full increases, though staged, for senior public servants. Most Opposition Members—Labour Members, with a few notable exceptions, Liberal Members and SDP Members — voted for the full increase in their own salaries in 1983 and oppose a staged increase for public servants in 1985.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was right to condemn the synthetic indignation of the Opposition. The House should reject their amendment with vigour and contempt.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I congratulate the Government on the wisdom of their policy. Last night many of us were extremely upset to hear that the Lord Chancellor was hard up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of State had finished his speech.

Mr. Leighton: I am making my own speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As is my custom, it will he brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Leighton: Many of my hon. Friends were extremely——

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this an intervention or is the hon. Gentleman making a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman to make a speech.

Mr. Leighton: I am pleased to hear than an hon. Member may make a speech in the House. If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) wishes to intervene. I shall give way.
I reiterate that the Opposition were touched to hear that the Lord Chancellor was hard up. I am sure that most of us were willing to grant him the extra £10,000 or £15,000 that he needs to make ends meet.
We have taken the wrong attitude. We ought to congratulate the Government on giving these good people 50 per cent. salary increases. My criticism of the Government is that ——

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) to give way to me as he promised.

Mr. Leighton: I am certainly willing to give way.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is doing the Lord Chancellor less than justice. He knows that the Lord Chancellor will not be taking the increase. The hon. Gentleman is misleading people into believing that the Lord Chancellor is waiting with his hand out for the money.

Mr. Leighton: If the Lord Chancellor is not really hard up, that takes a great burden off my mind. I thought that these top people were hard up and that we had to vote them an extra £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000 to keep the wolf from the door. If the hon. Lady assures me that the Lord Chancellor is not hard up, perhaps there is no problem.
However, the field-marshals, the admirals and all the other top people are hard up. At least, I am assured that they are hard up and that, therefore, as a matter of public policy, we must give them lots more money. They have a good shop steward and they must all be given thousands of pounds more.
Perhaps the Government are right. In congratulating them, I would say only that they are not going far enough. They should extend their wise policy that everyone should have a 50 per cent. pay increase. What about the teachers? Perhaps the teachers and everyone else should have a 50 per cent. increase.
Wisdom is dawning on the Government at last. Let the message go out to the nation that the Government say that everyone should have a 50 per cent. pay rise. I congratulate the Government on that signal.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would help the House if I reminded hon. Members that we are debating when we should adjourn for the summer recess.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I voted against the Government last night and if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has been fulminating against the top people's pay increase, had been able to get a proper turnout from his supporters, the policy that he so dislikes would have been defeated.
However, as we knew would be the case and as has happened throughout this Session, there was not a proper turnout of Opposition Members. Yet even without that proper turnout, the Government received a severe shock from the debate and the vote. What lessons should they learn from that?
Even those who were most enthusiastic in supporting the Government generally conceded that the political handling of the issue had been inept. However, I suspect that Ministers may have derived some comfort from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who said that the Government's action was bad politics, but good government. I hope that Ministers will not take that message. I usually agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but in this instance he is wrong. The Government's action was bad politics and bad government.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend knows that the TSRB reports on top people's pay have been accepted in the past. What was different about the policy put forward last night? What was so wrong last night which has been right in the past?

Sir Philip Goodhart: I can give my hon. Friend one example. Under the Labour Government we had massive inflation and top people had to have massive salary increases merely to stand still. Because of this Government's wise policies, we do not have massive inflation and, therefore, it is less necessary to give those people substantial pay increases.
The Government's decision has made it more difficult for Ministers to put forward wise policies. Good government consists trying to remove the excessive divisions that make conflict within the community more likely rather than to exacerbate them.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said in a thoughtful intervention last night that the Government were running three separate pay policies. He pointed out that they argued that young workers should price themselves into jobs and were implementing that policy by changing the structure of the wages councils. I think that that is the correct policy. It is one that I advocated before the Government took it up themselves. I wholly support the Government in their activities in that respect.
At the same time, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed out that the Government are telling those in the middle ranks of the public sector that they must show restraint, or inflationary monetary pressures will put the overall economic position in considerable jeopardy. Again, I believe that the Government are right in arguing this point.
When it comes to those at the top of the tree in the private and public sectors, the Government, again I think

rightly, are arguing that the differential should be increased. But it requires very great skill to argue all three policies at one and the same time. By accepting the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body the Government have made it much more difficult to do so. I think that the Minister will find it much more difficult in future to put forward these sensible policies, and I do not believe that this is good government.

Mr. John Gorst: As one who went through the same Lobby as my hon. Friend did last night, I wonder whether he has left one factor out of consideration in what he has said. Far from there being no good time for these matters to be dealt with so that one has to deal with them when they crop up, there is a good time for dealing with them, and this answers the last of his points in particular. When the economy is booming, one can do these things. However, when one is running an economy which might be a banana republic or lame economy, that is always the wrong time to give those who are in the best sense of the word parasitic, in that they are not wealth creators, an extra large amount of money.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Most certainly I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. I do not believe that the Government are presiding over a banana republic economy. We have one of the strongest economies in western Europe with a higher level of non-inflationary growth than any of our partners in the EEC.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend understand whether the Government now believe in comparability? I understood that they regretted having underwritten the Clegg awards, that they were trying to get away from comparability, that, for that reason, they did not support the proposal of the review board two years ago in respect of the pay of Members of Parliament, and were trying to avoid it in other respects. I have not understood the Government's position from any of the speeches that we have heard in the last two days. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me?

Sir Philip Goodhart: That is a point on which my hon. Friend had better expand for himself. If I sought to deal with it, I would detain the House at excessive length.
I note that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) argued last night, again with some force, that Opposition Members were always hostile to pay increases for those at the top of the salary scale, and that they were against people with large incomes. I think that there is considerable force in my hon. and learned Friend's words. In the past decade, however, I have noticed that there has been a more ready acceptance by the public of the idea that differentials between the top——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address the Chair rather than turn his back on it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I believe that there has been a more ready acceptance that there should be wider differentials. By accepting, as they have done, the whole of the Top Salaries Review Body report, I think that the Government have inadvertently put a road block in the way of the wider acceptance of differentials by the public as a whole. I shall therefore vote against the amendment, and I shall support the Government wholeheartedly.
I recall that towards the end of another debate some 45 years ago, when the majority of a Conservative Government fell very dramatically, Leo Amery stood up, pointed to Ministers on the Front Bench and said, "In the name of God, go!". I certainly have no intention of making any such dramatic pronouncement this afternoon.
My prosaic message to Ministers is this. In the name of common sense, go and have a good holiday, go and paddle on the beach, go and build sandcastles, go and read the excellent thriller by our colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What this whole episode shows is that the Government need a little rest. I am sure that they would not have made the decision that they have made had they not been as tired as Governments get at the end of a long Session. But, when Ministers return at the end of the summer recess, I hope that they will be a little more receptive to the views of Back Benchers, and will recognise that good government does not consist of trampling on the sensibilities of friends and supporters.

Mr. John Silkin: I hope that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) will forgive me if I do not follow him. He and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have quite properly turned it into a debate on matters of national importance and great moment to the country as a whole. But the summer Adjournment by tradition is also a time for constituency problems, and I think that the House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if for a moment I bring it back to that.
A number of the speeches that have been made so far were so well argued that it was almost impossible to know whether hon. Members were in favour of an Adjournment or against it. I wish to put it to the Leader of the House, who I hope will respond to the debate in due course, that the House should not adjourn without a promise to intervene with the Home Secretary in a constituency matter, the matter of my constituent, Mr. Michael Thynne. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure—and this has not always happened in the past — that the Home Secretary replies to my request today and that I get a favourable answer from him.
My constituent Mr. Thynne received a sentence of life imprisonment for a particularly odious crime — rape. The circumstances were appalling. At some time in 1983 he absconded from an open prison—I am putting the worst points first—and was at liberty for three months. He absconded later and was at liberty for three days. His term of imprisonment was then increased.
However, my constituent has come up for review by the parole board, which says that it will always report within six months. I have been writing to it since September 1984 because the review committee made a recommendation that the case of my constituent should be considered by the parole board as long ago as June 1984. Therefore, the question of the House adjourning for three months while that man has to wait to know what the parole board will decide is something that I, and I hope other hon. Members, find intolerable.
What the parole board decides is a matter for the board. But that a man should have to wait that length of time after 10 years of imprisonment is an absolute disgrace —[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] It was 1975 when he was first convicted. He has applied for parole and, in the normal

course of events, the decision of the parole board is given within six months. It is 13 months since he applied arid he is going through agony, and that should not happen.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take my point on board. It is to consider constituency cases as well as matters of national importance that Adjournment motions were instituted. It is important that we vote on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but I hope that the House will never lose sight of this opportunity to raise questions on behalf of our constituents.

Sir John Farr: We owe it to the Opposition that this afternoon we are. in part, debating the award for top people that was fully debated last night. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned public reaction. I did not attempt to intervene at that time because it was a little difficult. On Saturday I had three meetings in three different towns in my constituency, and on Sunday I had two further meetings in two other towns I met many people, but not one of them expressed opposition to the course taken by the Government. I have received only three letters from constituents objecting to the proposed increases.
If the country is to be run in a proper manner by top-class people, we must pay them the top-class rate for the job. If we cheat and cut down or ignore the recommendations of the review body, we deserve the fate of the country being run in a second-class way, which would be disadvantageous to everyone.
Having explained why I was pleased to vote for the Government last night—and would do so again—4 wish to raise another matter. We are discussing whether the House should adjourn on Friday, and I am tempted to support the Opposition amendment suggesting that we sit into next week. The Government have left a vacancy in their public information that should be made good before the House rises. It concerns the Government's attitude towards Northern Ireland and the discussions that have been held with the Republic of Ireland.
There has been so much rumour and mischievous talk about whether this or that decision has been taken that communities on both sides of the border in Ireland have real cause for concern and anxiety about what the future holds. I have every confidence that the Government will preserve the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. but I say that only because I know so well the Ministers who administer Northern Ireland so effectively. Public opinion in both the north and the south of Ireland does not take the same view of Ministers as that taken by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It would have been proper and right to have had a debate next week to discuss the progress or otherwise of the talks between Ministers in London and in Dublin. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have given an analysis of the position, outlining the state of play. That would have set at rest any unjustified fears. He could have given the House an assurance chat when it returned there would be a full and early debate before any final decision was taken.
Many of my hon. Friends have said that the Government are tending to slip on banana skins, are prone to making mistakes and are bad at public relations. The matter I raise is an example of bad public relations. There is a growing need for knowledge in Northern Ireland about


what, if anything, has transpired. A Government who are as conscious of good public relations as this Government should be would have recognised that defect and have taken the opportunity—and may yet do so next week—to make a public statement in the House that would have allowed a short exchange on both sides. It would have reassured hon. Members that the United Kingdom is to be preserved, so that we could then go away and enjoy a well-earned and prolonged recess.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I cannot imagine that there will be any shortage of hon. Members able, willing and even eager to carry on the debate on the subject of the opening speeches. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if I join my good friend the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in seeking to divert its attention to a matter of rather greater concern to us, to the hon. Gentleman and to many of his hon. Friends. I refer to the worsening political position in Northern Ireland—something that could easily have been avoided had not the impression been deliberately given that fundamental decisions would be taken and that significant announcements would be made while the House was in recess.
I heartily support the hon. Gentleman's call that the House should meet next week. My colleagues and I are willing and eager to come here next week if the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, can be induced to lay before the House a factual and up-to-date report of what is or is not being discussed in the Anglo-Irish discussions. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is nothing more likely to cause confusion or prove a greater incentive to trouble makers than the current uncertainty and suspicion, which can be dispelled only by responsible Ministers.
In a similar debate on 26 March last I illustrated how an atmosphere of stability and confidence had been created by the Prime Minister's forthright statement after the Chequers summit with Dr. FitzGerald in November. I explained how, in the aftermath of that, there had been something like a sigh of relief from Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, who said to themselves and, more important, to each other, "Now at least we know where we stand."
In the debate in March I expressed fears that that stability, confidence and relief of tension were being put at risk and eroded by inspired leaks about the Anglo-Irish talks. That was four months ago, and who can say that I was wrong? Northern Ireland Ministers have forfeited confidence not just by refusing until today to clear the air and remove suspicion. They have allowed substance to be given to the leaked proposals.
The first leaked proposal was that of Dublin judges sharing benches with Her Majesty's judges in Belfast. How does that square with assurances of no weakening of the Union? The second was that Dublin's demand for the abolition of the Ulster Defence Regiment had met with the possible phasing out of the part-time element of that regiment. The third was the inexplicable decision in recent weeks to increase tension by curbing parades which in past years had caused only comparatively trivial incidents. Those three examples are wholly at variance with the Government's earlier rejection of joint control or shared sovereignty.
Why has all that occurred? The answer is beginning to emerge through the same channel as was used for the inspired reports and leaks. It is that when British civil servants met their Dublin counterparts about six months ago—in the words of one of them, to repair the hideous damage done by "that woman" to Anglo-Irish relations —they offered the Dublin Government a consultative role in Northern Ireland affairs. Not surprisingly —Dublin politicians being old birds — Dublin said that consultation without real influence was worthless. Therefore, after months of haggling, it was decided to lay on demonstrations of good intent.
The Ulster judges were approached and suitably bullied. The Ulster Defence Regiment, apparently unacceptable to Dublin because Catholics would be murdered if they were to join, would have to be "trimmed", as The Guardian delicately put it. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was required to show its evidence of good intent and was forced to provide a demonstration of what it could do with a force of 2,000 in a situation where only 200 were required a year earlier.
We do not know whether Dublin has been impressed by those three examples of the results of consultation and advisory roles. It seems more likely that they will be regarded as a down payment and, like danegeld, more and more will be demanded.
Ulster people see all of those as the first fruits of the Anglo-Irish secret talks, and costly fruits they are and costly they will prove to be. The cost has been the greatest loss of confidence in Northern Ireland Ministers since the ill-fated Sunningdale experiment. They have succeeded in destroying in eight months all the stability that was established by the Prime Minister and the Government in the aftermath of the Irish Forum and the Chequers summit. And now, as the House prepares to adjourn for almost three months, I beg Ministers to desist from encouraging a monsoon of leaks, rumours, proposals, studies, deals and initiatives.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) suggested that the Government might be tired. I do not know whether he included in that remark his successors at the Northern Ireland Office. Tired or not, they should take a rest. Let us have an intermission in the weekly speculation by Ministers on the prospects of success of the Dublin talks.
To those Ministers who have plunged the Province into a state of unbelievable political confusion, we on this Bench say, "For God's sake, face up to the consequences of your indiscretions." On behalf of all who wish to preserve the democratic process, I suggest, as did Clem Attlee before me, that a period of silence from them would be welcome.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am grateful for this opportunity before the House adjourns to speak on a subject of great interest to my constituents. I refer to the situation in the Kent coalfield, which has a reputation for being the smallest, most isolated, most militant—and, now, the most vulnerable — mining community in Britain. A large question mark hangs over its future. I wish to comment on its future and on the future of the economic activity and employment that surrounds the east Kent coalfield.
I should at the outset explain that about a quarter of the Kent miners live in my constituency, although the three


pits are located in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is the most diligent of constituency Members and whose Cabinet responsibilities have not prevented him from being in his place as I raise this issue. I know that he shares many of the concerns and anxieties about his constituents that I now voice about mine.
The coal strike had a devastating, although predictable, effect on the Kent coalfield. Of the nine coal faces that were in production before the Scargill strike, five have been lost, two at Betteshanger, two at Snowdon and one at Tilmanstone. In addition to those geological losses, the Kent miners worsened their reputation for mindless militancy, for even after all other coalfields had returned to work the Kent men held out for a short period of senseless further strike.
Even after they went back, some of the most unpleasant acts of intimidation and victimisation of working miners took place in Kent. One sad statistic tells the story. Out of the 2,400 miners in Kent, 331 were working miners, but of those only 12 are today still employed in the Kent coalfield. The other 319 have left the industry and taken voluntary redundancy. The word voluntary in many cases should be in quotation marks because many of those men have been hounded out of the industry by the unpleasant and hostile attitudes of their colleagues.
That is a sad commentary on the deep and passionate divisions within the work force. But at least that phase of intimidation seems to be over. Just after the strike, one incident of intimidation was being reported to the police or NCB every day. In June there was only one such incident reported in the whole month, and there have been no reports of intimidation in July.
From my contacts with the NUM, and particularly with the NUM president, my constituent, Mr. Malcolm Pitt, I now detect not only a long overdue willingness to heal the wounds but a new mood of realism about the economic realities. Those realities are that it now costs £100 per tonne to mine coal in Kent. That coal can be sold on the market for only £50 a tonne. That is why the Kent coalfield is losing well over £2 million a month, or nearly £25 million a year. Those losses must be staunched if the Kent coalfield is to have a future.
Nobody on the Conservative Benches, in the Government or in the NCB wants to see the Kent coalfield close down. The new NCB manager in Kent, Mr. George McAlpine, is adamant in his view that he has arrived not to close a coalfield but to make it economically viable and successful. He and some leaders of the NUM believe that that can be done and that coal can be mined in Kent at half the present cost.
How is that to be achieved? First, there must be continuing improvement in management. For far too long the Kent coalfield was regarded as an appendage of the south midlands area. The most welcome change is that it has become a unit on its own. It has its own general manager with a short line of communication to the director of operations at Hobart house. That is a welcome management change. Secondly, the old reputation for union militancy has changed as well. That reputation meant clinging to outdated and inefficient styles of work on the surface and underground for far longer than at other coalfields. That must be replaced by new realism and new determination for productivity. Thirdly, a strategy must be

arrived at for slimming down the work force. That has already been done eslewhere and 900 voluntary redundancies have already been taken.
As I have explained, the Tilmanstone pit is located in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is scheduled for closure, subject to the colliery review procedure, in about nine months' time. Since the end of the strike it has cost £1 million a month to retain a mining presence at Tilmanstone, where 700 men have jobs. One new face has been in operation since 1 July. The NCB says that Tilmanstone face No. 5 has a life of only about nine months and that after that the exhausted pit must close. The NUM and NACODS are arguing—this is their case in the colliery review procedure—that face No. 5 has a much longer life, especially if mining operations can be extended to reach a nearby seam at a lower level.
It is not for me to prejudge the outcome of the colliery review procedure. I recognise that there are strong arguments on both sides. The good news is that they are both economic arguments that are based on realism. The Kent coalfield, whether it is at Tilmanstone or anywhere else, must achieve a production cost of £50 a tonne. If that is achieved, the field will have a chance of survival.
Employment prospects in the Kent coalfield are encouraging. First, there has been vigorous activity by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., an organisation that has a special remit from the Secretary of State for Energy to create new jobs in areas that are affected by redundancy. It has already made a substantial investment of over £350,000 in an insulating material factory at central stores, which will create 95 new jobs in east Kent. Other investment projects are under active consideration involving up to £1 million in grants and loans from NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. This is good news for the business community and the job-creating world of Kent.
Secondly, there is a future for hitherto untapped coal-related industrial activity in Kent. One private company has estimated that 3·3 million tonnes of recoverable coal lie on discarded tips on the surface of Kent coalfields and that much of it could be recovered by modern technology at competitive prices, thereby creating 200 new jobs using NUM labour.
Finally, it should be reiterated that a viable coal industry with the £20 million to £25 million of economic activity that it creates is well worth fighting to preserve in the depressed economy of the area which I represent. If only the management and the work force can co-operate to reach the cost figure of £50 a tonne, which everyone agrees is attainable, I, for one, foresee a successful going concern for the Kent coalmines in future.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: It is clear that the Prime Minister herself was responsible for accepting with alacrity all the proposals in the report from the Top Salaries Review Body. The Opposition think that she hid a duty to the House and the country to defend the Government's decision in the form of a speech. The Procedure Committee is investigating the form in which Prime Minister's Question Time is handled, and I took the opportunity to send a memorandum to the Committee in which I observed that it is rather strange that the Prime Minister makes fewer speeches in the House than an active Back Bencher. She gets away with literally murder at


Question Time. It is highly unsatisfactory that she is allowed to go from the beginning of a Session to the end of it without making one or two major speeches in the House.
The Leader of the House is an astute politician and he must recognise, whatever he said last night, and whatever he says this evening, that in accepting the report from the TSRB the Government have made asses of themselves. It is clear that there is a yawning chasm between the Prime Minister and the public. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) told us that when he returned to his constituency he heard not one complaint about the report. He must be the only Conservative Member to have that experience. The majority of Conservative Back Benchers who voted against the Government's decision to increase the Lord Chancellor's salary did so to save their own skins. Most of them represent marginal constituencies and they know that they are on a hiding to nothing there as a direct consequence of the Government's acceptance of the report.
Today's edition of The London Standard states:
It was the grossest piece of political ineptitude perpetrated by Mrs. Thatcher since she came to office.
By jove, that is a claim. She and her poodles—I accept that the Leader of the House cannot be so described—seek to defend themselves. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's courage and boldness, but to others their decision reflected stupidity and insensitivity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the Government's action can be said to show ineptitude and callousness. At the same time that the Government were saying that some people deserved or needed an extra £23,000 a year, they were saying to others, "You must price yourself into a job by taking employment at 50 quid a week." So we have a Government whose policy is based on unfairness and ineptitude.
The Scottish teachers have been on strike for many months for a living wage. The highest salary that can be obtained in any school in Scotland is £21,000, and that is not payable to anyone now. However, the head of the Civil Service is to receive a £23,000 increase to maintain his morale, to prevent him going into private business, or whatever. No one can seriously pretend that the man needs such an increase. As The London Standard today rightly says, the people will never forget the Government's acceptance of the TSRB's report. The decision will haunt the Government from now until the next general election, and they know it.
The later edition of The London Standard tells us that the Prime Minister last night threatened to resign. When I first read the article I thought that the right hon. Lady had promised to do so. I was hoping that it was a promise. The article describes how the Government Chief Whip was taking into his office half a dozen Tory Back Benchers at a time — rather like the Gestapo —and telling them, "You either support us tonight or instead of going to the beaches of Spain, France or elsewhere, you will be trundling the streets in a general election campaign."

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should introduce work-sharing for the top posts that are the subject of the TSRB report? If we had two people for the price of one, we might even have a better service.

Mr. Hamilton: The Government have suggested that that should be done in other sectors. This is an example of the double standards that we are getting from the Government. They say that low-paid workers must accept even lower wages to maintain or increase the number of jobs that are available. At the same time, they say to the people at the top who do not need the cash, "To maintain your morale and way of living you have to have a salary increase of £20,000 or £30,000"—in some instances an increase of 46 per cent.
I hope to get a more sympathetic response from the Leader of the House to my next point. Last Thursday, he said that the Government might find time to debate the recent report on Members' outside financial interests. On 4 July, writing in The Times, Mr. Anthony Bevins stated:
Some MPs are more than doubling their £16,904 parliamentary salary with outside business consultancies under which they provide political `intelligence' to their paymasters.
More than 140 MPs are acting as consultants and advisers to firms such as Imperial Tobacco, Grand Metropolitan Hotels, Texaco. British Aerospace, Tate and Lyle, and Rank Hovis McDougall, which are all in the top 50 British companies.
He went on to say that some companies pay £5,000 a year per consultancy and that a number of Members of Parliament are consequently doubling their salaries.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall continue because I am going to refer to two Conservative Members. I gave them notice that I would do so. Peter Riddell, writing in the Financial Times, stated:
The committee"—
I have referred to its report—
also discussed the increased number of secretaries and research assistants to MPs concurrently pursuing other vocations and using their access to parliament to further them. In evidence, Mr. Peter Luff, a director of Good Relations Corporate Affairs, who holds a pass as a research assistant to Sir Anthony Grant, Conservative MP for Cambridgeshire, South-West, said he held the pass, 'under great protest because it is the only way I can gain access to certain information."'
A short time ago, the Leader of the House said, when replying to a question from me, that 120 Members had registered their parliamentary consultancies—an increase of 50 per cent. over last year. He did not say that the number of declared consultancies had also increased by 50 per cent. to more than 300.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) lists in the register three directorships and 22 consultancies or clients, including Thames Water, the Lead Development Association—that association held an exhibition upstairs last week, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman organised it—the Take-Away and Fast Food Federation, Kentucky Fried Chicken Ltd, the Cement and Concrete Association, the National Bus Company, Pye Telecommunications, London Country Bus Services Ltd and the Scottish Transport Group. I had a word with the hon. Gentleman just before the debate started and told him what I would say. He has defended himself on the ground that his parliamentary salary is inadequate —£16,000-plus is not enough. However, we may not know how much he is paid for his consultancy work or what he does to earn it. God knows what these companies think that they will get from a Back Bencher for this service, but they must think it is worthwhile.

Mr. Peter Fry: To be attacked by the hon. Gentleman is often regarded by Conservative


Members as a compliment. It is almost a battle honour that one wears with pride. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not shown that anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) or I have done is in any way improper or in any way offends against the rules of the House. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to make it clear if he thinks that there is anything improper. If so, he owes it to us, as Members of Parliament, to spell out his claim so that we can adequately answer it.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I am putting on the record what is in the Register of Members' Interests. That is a voluntary register. Of course the hon. Gentleman is acting within the rules, but certain conventions should be followed. I believe that a Member is elected to represent his constituents, not to line his pockets, as is so blatantly done by an increasing number of hon. Members, especially Conservatives.

Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would raise this matter. Is he, or is he not, alleging any impropriety against me or any of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Hamilton: Indeed, I am. The hon. Gentleman never misses an opportunity to ask the Leader of the House, as he did last Thursday, for a debate on an early-day motion that specifically refers to the privatisation of local authority services in which he has financial interests.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I heard the hon. Member allege impropriety or improper conduct. He may disagree with the rules, but he must not make personal allegations of that kind.

Mr. Hamilton: If I implied impropriety, of course I withdraw. I would not act in that way. I would not use the Order Paper or the procedures of the House to further my outside financial interests, which have nothing to do with the people who elected me. I leave it at that.
When I was talking to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West about this matter, he asked, "Why pick on me?" That is a fair question. I could have picked scores of others. I shall put the activities of some hon. Members on the record. They are all Conservative Members. The list includes the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who registers— I do not know how many are not registered—three directorships and four consultancies, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)——

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall continue. The list includes the hon. Member for Wealden, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and has four directorships and three consultancies, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)——

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to refer to all the directorships which he thinks Conservative Members have without pointing out that many of his colleagues have directorships as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite in order. This is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) can make his own speech.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am going to put on the record what should be on the record.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman in getting this point on the record. Is he implying that the possession of these outside interests influences the way in which those hon. Members behave in the House?

Mr. Hamilton: It may well do. The code of conduct laid down for local councillors is much more stringent than the code for hon. Members. Farmers and directors of companies can go into the Lobbies——

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I know that this is irritating Conservative Members, but I shall put these points on the record. I am asserting that the code of conduct laid down for local councillors is much more stringent than the code for hon. Members who can vote for vast sums of money for their farms and companies without fear or favour. That is a big temptation. From the record of hon. Members' outside interests it is clear that they are using this place to further their private financial interests. A few weeks ago I gave an example of that in the House when a lobby correspondent drew to my attention the fact that two hon. Members were in the pay of drug companies. When the drug companies were in bad odour a few months ago, those two hon. Members tabled 70 oral questions to the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to whether we should adjourn in accordance with the motion before the House. Secondly, he must not allege that hon. Members are using this place to further their financial interests.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a legitimate matter for debate, but debate cannot proceed with this type of innuendo, unless it is clearly established that hon. Members are using this place to enhance their financial position. I suggest that to make that allegation is an infringement. It is important that the House should know your ruling on the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) must not make an allegation of that sort.

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The allegation has been made. May I suggest that it be withdrawn?

Mr. Hamilton: The allegation has not been made. I am merely laying the facts before the House to let hon. Members and the country make their deductions from them. I have put some of the facts on the record. As the Leader of the House has made it clear that he is sympathetic to such a debate, I hope that he will find time for one in the autumn because much more remains to be said about these matters than I have been able to say now.
A few weeks ago, when I attended the annual meeting of the United Kingdom America Parliamentary Association, the secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), said that a dinner was to be held later in the year for an anniversary celebration or some other reason. He sought to book a room downstairs,


but they were all booked until the end of the year. I am not making any assertions, but the Select Committee and I are worried at what goes on in those rooms night after night. I hope that if I ask the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), for a list of the names of hon. Members who have booked the rooms and for whom, he will give me that information.

Mr. Charles Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him? The rooms are all booked until the end of next year because the quality is so good.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accede to my request for that information. Will he give me the names of hon. Members who have booked those rooms, and state the purpose?

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman may care to know that on Monday night this week I addressed the Kettering rotary club—an institution of the highest probity—in Dining Room A. I hope that he does not seek to cast a slur on it.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not casting slurs on anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Will the hon. Member for Cheltenham guarantee to give me that information because even the Select Committee has expressed anxiety about the probable abuse of both Dining Rooms and Committee Rooms in the House? When the Speaker, who was at the meeting, heard that the rooms were fully booked, he generously offered his banqueting room, or whatever it is called, to the association, which it accepted.
The report is an important one. It impinges on the integrity of the House. If it is not debated, rumours will circulate in the press and outside. When the Leader of the House replies, I hope that he will undertake to find time to debate the report in October.

Sir Anthony Grant: The only comment I would make on the mean speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is that it tells us something about his mind. I am satisfied that, when compelled to do so, he withdrew allegations of impropriety.
To return to more serious matters, it was with great regret that last night I found myself unable to support the Government. Tonight I have no hesitation in supporting them. I resent the fact that the official Opposition have chosen to take up time with this motion. They had the whole of yesterday to debate the matter, but they chose to put up only one speaker. Traditionally, this is a time when Back Bench Members can raise constituency matters, as I propose to do now.
I can give the House a much better reason for not adjourning than that offered by the Opposition Front Bench. I do not want the House to rise until there has been an opportunity to consider coroners' courts and the appointment of coroners. I am prompted to do so by the tragic case of Harriet English, the daughter of my agent in south-west Cambridgeshire.
Harriet died in horrific circumstances in the London Clinic. She was 22, and a completely fit and, indeed, athletic girl. On 19 May she felt tired after playing

badminton, and later she complained of a pain in her shoulder. A general practitioner, Dr. Barretto, was consulted. He diagnosed a torn ligament, and administered an injection to ease the pain. During the following days, she became extremely ill, and, in the absence of Dr. Barretto, she was treated by his partners. During four days she got worse, and was ultimately rushed to the London Clinic where she died in agonising circumstances. The cause was said to be septicemia, which was at no time diagnosed. Obviously, the doctors recognised that something serious was wrong because the pain-killing drugs were strong ones used only in serious cases.
The death of a healthy 22-year-old girl in four days after being injected for a painful shoulder calls for a meticulous investigation. On 17 July the inquest at Westminster raised as many questions as it sought to resolve. How did she get septicemia? Why was it not diagnosed? What drugs should have been used? What was the effect of the drugs that were administered? Yet the verdict of the coroner, Dr. Knapman, was natural causes. That seems extraordinary. A verdict of death by misadventure would have been more realistic. However, probably an open verdict would have been the wisest decision.
I intend to bring the whole matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so that he can consider whether there should be a judicial review to bring out the missing facts. However, in the House now I want to raise the broad question of coroners' courts and the appointment of coroners. Coroners' inquests are inevitably highly emotional, being concerned with life and death, and tragedy. They must be conducted with scrupulous care and in accordance with the highest judicial standards. Unlike some courts dealing with quite minor matters, the only appeal from them is by leave of the Attorney-General. Perhaps the informal style of conducting inquests is appropriate in some cases, but in major cases that is not so.
Coroners must, by statute, be lawyers of five years' standing or more, or legally qualified medical practitioners. Most frequently coroners seem to fall into the latter category. They seem to be primarily doctors and only to a lesser extent people with legal qualifications. For my part, I believe that it is desirable for a corner to be a person of legal and judicial experience rather than primarily medical experience. Very often at inquests, the conduct of medical practitioners comes into question. Let me emphasise that I am not making any suggestions of impropriety against Dr. Knapman, but it is important that inquests be conducted in such a way that justice is not only done but seen to be done, as we require in the major courts. That is especially so if complex medical evidence is involved and has to be sifted by lawyers. It might even be desirable for major inquests, or ones of great complexity, to be conducted by a High Court or senior judge brought in for the occasion. That would give greater confidence to the unfortunate people involved.
That is the point of principle that I seek to make. My unfortunate constituents know that nothing can bring their daughter back, but they seek all the facts so that others may be spared Harriet's tragic fate.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am mindful of the comments that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made about the use of the time in this debate, particularly because I


am sympathetic to the views that he has just put forward, which many hon. Members with experience of coroners' courts will share. There is widespread anxiety about the way in which they operate, particularly in some recent prominent cases.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand the anxiety, which many hon. Members share, about the implications of the events over the past two or three days connected with the top pay award, which further undermines the Government's economic policy. I am sure that he will also understand our belief that, because of that, there is a case for extending the present Session to provide an opportunity for a much fuller debate than last night's debate to consider the implications of the past two or three days.
In the light of the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), this is also an opportunity to consider Labour's alternatives to what the Government have done and to the pay policy that the Government are or are not pursuing, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said in an intervention. The credibility of the case put by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was undermined by the fact that he had no alternative to bring forward to the House and the country from the Labour party's locker as a way of resolving such problems.
Last night's vote was unprecedented in the Government's period of office. It was in fact a vote of no confidence in the Government by their own supporters. I think that it will be seen by the country as a vote of no confidence. As Conservative Members so ably showed last night, it is a vote of no confidence in the Government's pay policy.
On several occasions, in interventions to the Chancellor and other Ministers, I have criticised the lack of a coherent pay strategy or policy. That was made absolutely clear in Conservative Members' speeches during last night's debate. The events of the past two or three days, the Government's acceptance of the top pay award and the reaction to it are an inevitable consequence of the Government having no strategy for pay in either the public or the private sector.
Pay in the private sector is now increasing by around 9 per cent. a year. Clearly, that will further undermine the Government's economic policy. However, in the public sector there has been different treatment for different public sector workers since the Government came to office. For example, the police and the armed services have been marching ahead of people in other parts of the public sector, whereas teachers, those in the National Health Service and civil servants have been held back unjustifiably compared with increases in the private sector.
There is no doubt that the award, which the Government have allowed to go ahead with no staging, has undermined the Government's exhortations to workers in the private sector to restrain their claims, and their exhortations to members of the Confederation of British Industry and employers to resist pay claims that will make British industry less competitive. It has undermined the Government's policy towards the teachers and the nurses, to whom a staging agreement was offered, so that their 8·5 per cent. increase was phased over a period. It has undermined the whole of that strategy, if one can give it that name.
That is the result of the high pay awards and seeking to accept the basis of comparability contained in the top salaries review. The problem has been with us for many years. Not only Conservative but Labour Governments have had a great deal of experience over the past two decades. A great deal of work has been done. The Government swept away the pay research unit after they came to office and established the Megaw committee to look into ways of introducing a new system of settling Civil Service pay, but as yet, after all those years in office, the Government have still not succeeded in reaching any agreement on a sensible method of comparability and settling pay disputes and negotiations in either the Civil Service or other parts of the public sector.
Our view, based largely on the detailed and comprehensive work by the Megaw committee, is that the recommendations from the ad hoc and inconsistent inquiries should be swept away and replaced by a comprehensive system of comparability between the public sector and the private sector. A proper non-inflationary comparability system is the only real solution to the problem. Different sectors of different workers have been left to catch up after a period, such as the teachers with the Houghton award, or other public sector workers with the Clegg award. If public sector workers fall behind, as they have done in those instances and on this award, inevitably any hope of a sensible pay strategy for the whole country is undermined.
The past two decades show that that system is the key to getting the economy into equilibrium and to getting expansion and people back to work without inflation. That is why there is an overwhelming case for supporting the amendment and for giving the House an opportunity to debate this central economic issue—how to determine public sector pay and avoid the knock-on effect of high and unjustifiable pay awards such as the Government have given top people.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I support the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) regarding the future relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the request by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party for a statement on current discussions between officials in Dublin, Belfast and London. That must be essential for the stability and development of the Province, which should be of concern to us all.
Before the House rises for the summer recess, it should have the opportunity to consider wind energy. Any mention of the advantages of wind for hon. Members is open to misinterpretation and perhaps energy at the end of the Session is more than usually difficult to summon up. However, alternative sources of power deserve increasing attention.
Several options have been considered, including geothermic, wave and tidal power, but current development shows that the greatest potential might lie with wind energy. Its advantages are considerable, but the most striking is that it derives from a consistently available resource which is natural and renewable.
Additional to the economic pluses of saving or replacing the use of expensive fossil fuels arid the reduction of dependence on imported energy or on unreliable sources due to industrial disruption are the environmental advantages, including the lack of


atmospheric pollution. British Aerospace is a major company in my constituency and its experience, derived from propellers and high performance engineering, has been put to good effect as a member of the Wind Energy Group. Windmills, which are often less romantically referred to as wind turbine generators, are already in use and under construction, making a valuable addition to the production of electricity, but anxiety that we may not lead the way as we should in windmill technology must be sounded.
Because of a lack of speed in initial Government support for such activity in the United Kingdom, despite undoubted and leading expertise, the competition must now be overtaken. It would be another example of lost opportunity if the Central Electricity Generating Board and others had to look overseas to buy windmills.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in south Warwickshire, the National Coal Board is proposing to invest £500 million to develop a new super-pit? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on how the companies involved in the development of alternative sources of power might spend that money if it were made available to them?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His deep understanding of the problems of energy leads me to my next point. The involvement of different Ministries has perhaps contributed to the difficulties to which I have referred. The Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry are already involved, and the Overseas Development Administration might now also be involved, with potential for export to Third world nations. The Government should consider a lead Ministry for alternative energy development. Companies such as British Aerospace, which are involved in the Wind Energy Group projects, would then benefit directly from such money.
British Aerospace has also been deeply involved with the European Space Agency, which has pointed the way on international co-operation. An example of the benefits of such co-operation has been the company's prime contractor role for the Giotto spacecraft, which has successfully been launched to encounter Halley's comet and deserves all our congratulations. Such an agency might be an appropriate way in which to advance with alternative energy to minimise experimentation costs and to maximise earning potential. New job opportunities might also flow from that.
Right hon. and hon. Members are often accused of tilting at windmills. On this occasion, before the House rises, perhaps such tilting will have been put to some good effect.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall not follow what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) said about Northern Ireland but rather follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about the amendment concerning the thorny subject of whether the Lord Chancellor's salary should be £77,000 a year to stay £2,000 a year ahead of that of the Lord Chief Justice. That is a singular reason for giving a man £77,000 a year.
I recall a time in my distant past when, if I may quote L.P. Hartley, things were done differently. I remember why pit pay was kept low—pitmen had free coal and lodging. The houses in which they lived belonged to the coal owners. When the Lord Chancellor is given £77,000 a year, no reference is made to his having free coal and lodging — or rather, free heating, rates and accommodation.
As it happens, I have a soft spot for the Lord Chancellor. When I heard that his salary increase was to be debated in the House, I laid a side bet that he would not take it. I knew my man, or rather I knew the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and who has the unique distinction of being head of the legal profession, a member of the Cabinet and at the same time Speaker of the upper House. The post was not envisaged by Montesequieu when he wrote about the separation of the powers.
I have a soft spot for the Lord Chancellor because he was part and parcel of my first political act. I heckled him during the general election campaign of 1964 when he visited Newcastle upon Tyne. I doubt whether, in this day and age, I could have got close enough to a Conservative Minister to heckle him, but that is how it was in those days.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is making very kind references to my noble Friend. Is he aware that my noble Friend's involvement has enhanced many a Conservative cause? I can bear witness to that in my constituency. He has come to support me in each general election I have fought there and each time I have been returned with an increased majority.

Mr. Bell: I am sure that, during his long career, the noble Lord has enhanced many Conservative causes. I remember that, in the late 1950s, I shared one distinction with Lord Soper—we never understood the noble Lord when he talked about the British empire. I have not had an opportunity to discuss his views since then, but I am sure that he may have been as opaque in other directions as he was on that subject.
There is another reason why the Lord Chancellor is close to my heart. He was Minister with responsibility for the north-east in 1963 when we had a compassionate Conservative Government which sent him to the nort-heast——

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Wearing a flat cap.

Mr. Bell: —when we had high unemployment there.
My right hon. Friend refers to his flat cap. The fact is that the noble Lord got as far as Darlington in a bowler hat, but when he reached Darlington he changed it for a flat cap. However, his visit resulted in the building of the Newcastle and Teesside airports and a road infrastructure in the north-east. He helped us to build up the region so that when, thankfully, in 1964 a Labour Government were returned to power we were able to build upon his efforts. I have to tread somewhat carefully because the noble Lord is also the head of my profession. That happens to be one of my declared interests. I am aware of the fact that I am sailing close to the wind. The point is that the Government have deemed it necessary to give a salary increase to the noble Lord that increases his salary to £77,000 a year.
A great deal was made of what the Chief Secretary described as "synthetic indignation". Unfortunately, there was nothing synthetic about the public indignation. Those


who receive invalidity benefit live in dread that a Department of Health and Social Security medical examination will remove them from the sick list to the dole queue. Those who are seriously ill now find that the prescriptions for the drugs which are necessary for their survival cost £4·50 each. My constituents in Middlesbrough have to wait longer and longer for home improvement grants. The changes in the regulations mean that those who are young and homeless have to sleep rough. These people, and others like them, realise that under the social security review they will be the losers. They perceive that there is one rule for the rich and another rule for the rest of us.
Last night, one hon. Member referred to the fact that the implementation of the 1978 top salaries review by the Labour Government was followed by the general election in 1979. More aptly, he might have said that the freezing of nurses' pay in 1962 led to the electoral defeat of the Conservative party in 1964. To use a colloquialism, by implementing the top salaries award the Government have revealed to the people of this country that they believe in a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to the rich. This perception will not be clouded by rhetoric, news management or any other manipulative sleight of hand. It has left an indelible impression upon the low paid.
I ought to refer briefly to what low pay is. The Low Pay Unit defines low wages as
at or below two-thirds of the median (mid-point of the distribution) earnings of full-time male workers, giving a figure for 1984–85 of £107 for a basic 39 hour week or £2·75 an hour for part-timers). This is very close to the TUC's minimum wage 'target' of £104 and to the Council of Europe's 'decency threshold' for earnings as specified under Article 4 of the European Social Charter. 'This is set at 68 per cent. of average male/female earnings, yielding a 1984–85 figure for Britain of £108·32 a week.
All those people must wonder why the Government are giving top salaries to special categories of people while they have to live upon what is described as a "decency threshold". If that is linked to the fact that wages councils are to be abolished for those under the age of 21 and that the role of wages councils is to be limited to fixing hourly rates and overtime rates, one wonders how shop workers will be affected by the Government's trading proposals.
The entire purpose of the Government's review of shop opening hours was that if shops were to be allowed to open on Sundays there was no need to make special provision for shop workers; they could be dealt with by means of other legislation and their wages could be settled by the wages councils. If legislation is to be introduced which allows shops to open on a Sunday and if shop workers are expected to have recourse to the wages councils to look after their rights, they will find that the role of the wages councils has been reduced and that for those under 21 years of age they have been abolished altogether. This legislation will therefore lead to the low paid being put at a disadvantage.
In a letter, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers says of the Government's proposed legislation on Sunday trading and its consequences in my constituency of Middlesbrough:
Some of us want to go to church on Sundays in order to give expression to our religious beliefs. Others of us find that Sunday is the only day of the week when all the family can be together, and it is important that the bonds with our families and friends should not be broken. Our employers have told us they do not

want to open the shop on Sundays and will not be the first to do so, but they warn us that if the shop across the road is open and we are not, we will be forced to do likewise.
That letter relates to Sunday activities, to low pay and in the end to the Government's policy.
The Government are on a slippery slope. They have found that events are slipping out of their reach. Instead of having control over events, they have lost control. It will take some time before the walking on the pavement, to which the Chief Whip is alleged to have referred when his colleagues were threatening to vote against the Government, comes about, but when that walking on the pavement takes place it will be the walking of voters to the polls. When they do so, they will decisively reject this Government. We have to wait patiently, but:
Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all.
The electorate are in that position. They will grind slowly, but they will grind properly. They will grind this Government into the dust.

Several hon. Members: rose ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Most speeches in this debate have been admirably short. I hope that this pattern will continue. Eight other hon. Members wish to speak before the wind-up speeches at about 20 minutes to nine o'clock. I therefore appeal for brevity.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I should like to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and refer to the National Coal Board. One matter which should be drawn to the attention of the House before we rise for the recess is the NCB's proposals for mining coal in Warwickshire in what it calls the south Warwickshire prospect. That includes a substantial part of my constituency.
The matter is urgent, and we should discuss it before rising for the recess, because the National Coal Board is even now having discussions with local authorities to fix a site for the proposed new pit complex. Those discussions are taking place without the benefit of any debate in this House.
We should have an opportunity to consider three basic principles. First, taking into account changing technology, will the coal be required in the 21st century? Secondly, can the expected investment of about £500 million be found? Thirdly, if the earlier conditions are satisfied, could not the coal be obtained from existing pits in Warwickshire, such as Coventry colliery and Daw Mill? The House should have an opportunity to express its opinion on those important matters.
The board's quoted investment figure of £500 million represents a substantial sum of public money — large even by the standards of the House——

Mr. Allan Rogers: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
It might help the House if I gave some details of the National Coal Board's time scale. By the end of this year, it hopes to have fixed a site for the pit complex. By the middle of next year, planning applications will have been submitted. By 1988, the board hopes that the site works will start, and hopes that the first coal will emerge by 1998. That time scale should not blind the House to the


size and urgency of the problem. Once projects of this size begin, they seem to develop their own momentum, a momentum which it becomes difficult to control.
The NCB would not have put forward this proposal if it did not believe that the funding was readily available. Indeed, it would not now be discussing with the local authorities the site of the new super-pit if it did not believe that the money was available.
The south Warwickshire prospect will produce about 3 million tonnes of coal a year. It will be high-quality coal extracted from deep seams about 14 ft thick. The coal will be of sufficient quality to be used in industry, in the domestic market and in power stations. Indeed, about 60 per cent. of it is earmarked for the power stations of the Central Electricity Generating Board. However, will the CEGB require those enormous quantities of coal? We should remember the nuclear alternative, which is cheaper and cleaner than the extraction of power from fossil fuels. With nuclear power, there is no problem with acid rain or with the disposal of ash. There is no need for trucks and trains to move the coal to power stations. The NCB must prove that this enormous investment will benefit the nation, and not merely the board.
Hon. Members will recall that we have just come through a long and bitter coal dispute, which produced intimidation on a scale never envisaged in the United Kingdom. Those activities do not demonstrate responsibility. It is noteworthy that Mr. Scargill still preaches no pit closures, the class war, and the message of the strike. Against that background, are we justified in investing £500 million in this new super-pit?

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and say that the real reason why he and his constituents are against the pit is that it will intrude into a beautiful area of Great Britain? I might support him if he put forward that argument, and I will expect his support when I ask for some marginal investment by the coal board in areas such as the Rhondda valley, which I represent, and which has between 30 and 90 per cent. unemployment, skilled miners available, an infrastructure of education, transport and communications and people extremely anxious to work. We also live in a beautiful part of the country, but we have learned how to get rid of our despoliation. I will support him if he is honest, and I expect him to support me in future.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my speech. If he listens patiently, he will hear my argument. I look forward to his continuing support.
The NCB says that the area of search lies between Coventry and Kenilworth. To paraphrase the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), it is a green and pleasant land. The pit complex will cover one square kilometre. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who has responsibility for coal, now in his place. Knowing his interest, concern and conscientiousness, I would have been surprised were he not here. I am grateful to him for listening to my arguments.
The pit complex, which will cover one square kilometre, will include winding towers, a coal treatment plant, car parks for trucks and a massive coal storage area. The operation will involve between 300 and 500 lorry

movements a day. It will involve the movement of 10 large trains each day. All this is in a green belt, which is already under considerable threat.
If the National Coal Board can justify the need for the coal, why should it not be extracted from the pits at Daw Mill or at Coventry? It seems that the only argument against the development of those pits is an economic one, but there is more at stake than pure economics. The environment must be protected. If there is a larger national interest, I take note of it, but the interests of those who live in what the hon. Member for Rhondda and I agree is a green and pleasant land should also be considered.
I recognise that planning applications must be submitted to the likely mineral authority, which is Warwickshire county council. I am also aware that we can have section 52 agreements and environmental impact assessments. Those conditions will help to safeguard the amenities of the area, but they are not enough. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider using the machinery that exists in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to set up a planning inquiry commission? That commission would be empowered to examine the entire issue in depth. It would examine the board's proof of needs and the environmental issues, and it would assess the transport considerations and implications, and the attitude of the public. It would give us an opportunity to evaluate the views expressed at two large public meetings—one attended by 350 people and the other by more than 700. The hon. Member for Rhondda was right to imply the depth of feeling in my constituency.
The position has changed since the inquiries into the Asfordby and Vale of Belvoir pits. We have had the Sizewell inquiry, with all its implications for the CEGB. We have had the miners' strike, and we know its implications for the industry. We are aware of the changing demands for coal and of the new technology that is emerging. All those matters would fall within the remit of a planning inquiry commission. It could and would examine those matters, and there is certainly time for such a commission to be set up. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider my suggestion and, at the right time, to give it his unqualified support.

Mr. Don Dixon: I support the amendment because it highlights the Government's attitude to two nations. It speaks about both the Top Salaries Review Body awards and the treatment of the wages councils. The Government believe in the north and the south, the rich and the poor, the healthy and the sick being divided.
It is disgraceful that the Government have singled out the lowest paid and then suggested that the abolition of the wages councils would create jobs. All that will happen is that unscrupulous employers will sack workers over 21 and employ youngsters on a lower wage than they are already getting under the wages councils. Wages councils wages are already low. In 1974, they were 73 per cent. of the national average and in 1984 only 65 per cent. Some of the wages in the hairdressing profession are only £57 a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) spoke about the Council of Europe's decency wage threshold of £108 a week, which shows how poorly some people are still paid.
The Government have already attacked the wages councils. They have cut the wages inspectorate and


unscrupulous employers are not being prosecuted when they do not pay the already low wages suggested by the wages councils. Last night, there was a rebellion on the Tory Benches. I would have been more impressed if it had been because they recognised the injustice of the TSRB awards rather than because they were looking after their own skins for the next general election.
None of my constituents will be affected by the TSRB awards, but a number will be affected by the proposals about the wages councils. A few days ago, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the naval dockyards. He spoke about commercial management, but I do not think that he realised that, until 1977, the shipyards had commercial management, which virtually ruined the shipbuilding industry. One of the reasons for the high unemployment in my constituency is the commercial management of the shipbuilding industry. We do not need any lessons from the Government about that.
The Secretary of State for Defence spoke about reports, but in 1962 we had the Paton reports on the shipbuilding industry, in 1966 the Geddes report and in 1972 the BoozAllen report. Every one of those independent reports criticised the commercial independent and private management of the shipbuilding industry. If the right hon. Gentleman were to take his suggestion of commercial management to its logical conclusion, he should sign the armed forces over to the mercenaries rather than have to pay the admirals and generals the fat increases suggested by the TSRB.
My constituency has been damaged by this Government since 1979. We have miners not millionaires, engineers not racketeers, shipbuilders not shipowners; they have all been hit by the Government's policies. In 1930, unemployment in Jarrow was 30 per cent. above the national average. Today, it is 40 per cent. above the national average and 46 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than 12 months. That is the effect of the Government's policies.
We should not adjourn and swan off on our foreign holidays until we have had a statement from the Government about their attitudes and policies to the second nation that they have created.
Not only have the unemployed and the sick been hit; the pensioners have suffered. When the London Regional Transport Act was in Committee, the Government underwrote concessionary bus passes for pensioners in London, but refused to do so for pensioners in the rest of the country. That exemplifies the Government's attitude. Pensioners have also been hit by the closure of sub-post offices and the loss of such services as doorstep delivery of milk. They need protection, not attack, from the Government.
I support my right hon. Friend's amendment because I want the Prime Minister to make a statement on the wages councils and to explain to the House and the nation why she is attacking those at the bottom of the scale while she is giving fat increases to those at the top. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough referred to the Lord Chancellor's salary. We in the north realise that, when the noble Lord was Minister with responsibility for our region, he did a tremendous amount of work on the infrastructure there. It is a pity that the Government do not continue the philosophy that he carried out when he was a Minister.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Despite the way in which the debate was opened, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is still thinking of taking a holiday in the near future. If he is still of that mind, he could do a lot worse than consider going to Teignbridge. It is an excellent constituency, the full delights of which I set out in my maiden speech so many years ago. However, if my right hon. Friend were thinking of going down to Dartmoor and of dropping in at. Two Bridges, which is a beauty spot in that area, he would find that others had got there before him. He would find there the remnants of the "peace convoy" of Stonehenge fame.
Perhaps many hon. Members regard hippies and hippydom with a certain nostalgia and think that hippies are an arcadian delight, splendid and marvellously charming creatures with long flowing hair, even if it no longer meets in the middle. However, the reality for the people in my part of the world is different.
I can do no better than quote from a letter in which the 'director general of the National Trust wrote to The Times about the peace convoy when it was at Stonehenge. He said:
Crowds of festival-goers disported themselves on the stones in scenes closer to desecration than to religion. About 1,000 young trees were torn or cut down; trenches and holes were dug with disregard for the ancient barrows; fences were ripped up, and a scarred landscape of burnt-out vehicles and rubbish was the legacy of the festival.
The people who live in my constituency and own private land that has been invaded by these people are now having to endure such conditions, as I saw when I went clown there.
The rights of an Englishman come in many shapes and sizes. I would be the first to concede that one of them is that if a person wants to live his life in foulness, degradation, indolence and squalor, he should be allowed to do so. However, it is not his right to expect that such a life should be paid for by the taxpayer. Neither is it right that he should expect to be entitled to flout the law because of the way that he exercises his lifestyle.
Despite the fact that the vehicles in the peace convoy are manifestly unroadworthy and profoundly dangerous to anybody who might come into contact with them, the law is powerless. Mercifully, after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act comes into effect on 1 January 1986, the sections of it that deal with this problem will ensure that that side of things is taken care of. No longer will a hippy be able to tell a policeman that he is a little ray of sunshine or Donald Duck from Disneyland and be certain that his vehicle will not be taken off the road.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board the fact that, under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, anybody who qualifies for supplementary benefits should be available for work. It is manifestly clear from the way in which these people live and travel from one part of the country to another and try to disguise who they are and what there whereabouts are that they are not making themselves available for work.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be prepared to consider the guidance being given to the adjudication officer, who has to decide these matters if supplementary benefit officers are not convinced that a person is available for work. I hope that he will say that this is an abuse of the way that the supplementary benefit system works, and of the system and should not be


countenanced. People should not be able to use taxpayers' money in that way, because that is not the reason for which supplementary benfits were instituted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some comfort that in future outrages of that sort will not be financed by the taxpayer.

Mr. Allen McKay: I always understood that supplementary benefits were intended, as the name implies, to supplement inadequate income. Supplementary benefits do not require an applicant to be available for work as is the case with unemployment benefit. If people had an adequate income there would be no need for supplementary benefits. One out of every six of my constituents is unemployed and I am sure that people like that would be grateful not to have to rely on supplementary benefit.
I hope that this does not turn out to be a debate on mining. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) mentioned the investment of the Coal Board in his area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if such investment is not welcome in his area, it would certainly be welcome in ours, if we could find a place to put it. Unfortunately, the 20 collieries which have closed have probably worked out all the reserves in the area.
I am reminded of the time when we were looking at Selby. The people in Selby had visions of hordes of cloth-capped, clogged miners appearing over the horizon and coming into the green acres of Selby. They were quite surprised when the gentlemen who work in the mining industry appeared in the Selby area, because they were quite different. The people probably thought that the miners would use the twin towers of York minster as up and down shafts to exploit the Selby coalfield. They found out after the planning arrangements had gone through that they could hardly see the Selby complex because it merged into the beautiful green countryside. The constituents of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth have no need to be afraid of the massive investment that the Coal Board will put into their area. If he does not get the investment, he will find himself with a lot of unemployed constituents, because the board is replacing pits and reducing capacity rather than extending it.
We shall have to debate the matter in about 10 years' time because, according to forecasts, much will happen around the year 2010. The gas and oil fields in the North sea will not have run out, but they will be so expensive to exploit that it will not be possible. In that same year, coal for the coal-fired power stations will have been burnt out. Therefore, many decisions will have to be made in about 10 years.
According to the gas undertakings, they will need about 100 million tonnes of coal a year in 2010, and that is the amount that the Coal Board intends to produce. The generating boards are a little worried about what is to happen after 2010. In 10 years' time, we will have to make decisions about what will replace the present power stations, whether they will be coal or oil-fired, and whether they will be of the conventional type or of the type which will counter the problem of acid rain. How many nuclear power stations will we have then, and will we have new forms of propulsion? All those matters could have been debated today if we had had time.
I support the amendment. There is no doubt that people realise how insensitive the Government are about the pay increases for top people. People are incensed about it. The unemployed rely on supplementary benefit and have seen welfare provision eroded. They have lost their earnings-related supplement because the Government abolished it, and their welfare benefits have been eroded by about 10 per cent. Those people are awaiting the Fowler review to see if it will make further inroads into their benefits.
Because of Government policies and rising unemployment, the Government have insufficient money to compensate for the disastrous policies that they have heaped on the country. One of my constituents, Mr. Eric Moxon, attempted, as many others have attempted, to take part in a job release scheme. That is a good scheme because it means that people are able to leave work early and create vacancies for others. That is what Mr. Moxon and a number of others did.
Then, suddenly, Mr. Moxon found out that the Government had conned him about increases for inflation. People in the job release scheme found out this year that they had received an increase of 60p. We made inquiries about such a low increase when everybody else was getting £3 to £4. I have a letter which says:
The taxable allowances have been increased by a lesser percentage than the tax-free allowances to allow for favourable developments in the Inland Revenue personal tax allowances.
That means that those people have paid for their own tax allowances. By a sleight of hand, the Government, through the Chancellor, have given those people an increase in the base of their tax allowances, then clawed it back by not giving them an increase in the job release scheme. Thousands of people are incensed and hurt about that, and suddenly they read that the Government have decided that top salaried people are to get an increase of £25,000. When a person receives an increase of 60p and learns that someone else is getting an increase of £25,000, he is going to be incensed. That is one reason why I will be voting for the amendment, and it is the reason why millions of people who have realised what Government policies are doing will say at the next election, "We have had enough." I endorse that sentiment.

Mr. James Hill: It is now almost one year since the establishment of the six free trade zones in the United Kingdom. The principle is right, and in the optimum location a free trade zone can in principle become the focus of a significant increase in economic activity, attracting trading and in the right environment manufacturing, which in turn attracts investment and revenues from overseas, and encourages the growth of United Kingdom companies.
The Southampton free trade zone, with its enormous potential for industrial growth, is the optimum United Kingdom location. Given encouragement, it could be a significant catalyst for growth in employment and for additional wealth creation, and would be a major boost to the United Kingdom invisible earnings. After a year's experience, however, we face two serious and persistent areas of difficulty. It would not put too strong an emphasis on these difficulties to say that if they are not resolved, free zone development at Southampton and the other five areas will not be commercially viable.
The two areas of difficulty are over-regulation and the national dock labour scheme. I will not deal with the problem in any detail, but a brief explanation is essential.
We have found that, far from being a regime which is relatively free from bureaucratic interference and restrictions, there is a plethora of regulations. Many of them relate to VAT. The restrictions imposed, by their very existence, present a major problem, and this is exacerbated by confused and complex interpretation on the part of the relevant authorities, particularly the Customs and Excise. A full list of the regulations is set out in early-day motion 820.
The regulations and their interpretation are driving potential business away from the United Kingdom. We need to debate the matter when we return from the recess, and the national dock labour scheme must be analysed in regard to work within the free trade zones.
Southampton and Liverpool are both battling against the scheme and registered dock workers. I do not have time to explain the problem fully, but I stress that the scheme and the areas within ports that should be controlled and worked by registered dockers will have to be reviewed.

Mr. Peter Shore: It was not in a spirit of masochism that we tabled our amendment to force the House to sit for an additional two days. We tabled it because we thought that it was right for the House to have a full and proper debate on a matter that the country considers to be of the greatest importance.
We believe that the issue of public pay policy, with all its implications for millions of people at work, should be debated this side of the recess rather than our being forced into silence until the House resumes late in October. The speeches in the debate—I have counted 17 so far—have justified our decision, because nine hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have devoted their remarks, in whole or in part, to public sector pay and particularly to the Top Salaries Review Body report. We witnessed an astonishing event last night. During my time as an hon. Member I have never witnessed such a large Government majority plummeting so low. I believe that that genuinely reflected the great unease felt not only on the Opposition side, but, clearly, in a large part of the Conservative party.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House must have realised that there is a direct and personal link between the Prime Minister and the decision taken on the TSRB report. After all, the review body reports directly to the Prime Minister and all of us who have served in Governments know that, while the Cabinet should certainly play its part, this is a matter in which a Prime Minister's personal judgment is bound to play an important part.
It was interesting to read the comments of The London Standard, a great friend of the Prime Minister, on Monday — before last night's development. It said in an editorial:
The Prime Minister's political acumen has always lain in appealing to the popular instinct … In this second administration, especially during recent months, this acumen seems to be failing her. But it has taken the storm over top people's salaries—a storm which everyone but Mrs. Thatcher had seen approaching—to show that she has, with cruelly sudden completeness, lost the common touch.
The way in which the review body report has been handled reveals an astonishing insensitivity and an astonishing lack

of touch, common sense and instinctive understanding of how ordinary people in their millions respond to such issues.
A succession of Ministers has exchanged views with us, always in somewhat restricted form. We had a private notice question on Friday, which was taken by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, though hardly to his great credit. We had exchanges with the Prime Minister during her Question Time on Tuesday, the Leader of the House opened a restricted one-and-a-half hour debate on a statutory instrument yesterday and the Minister of State, Treasury was wheeled on today.
I am inclined to think that it is right to describe top people's pay policy as being explosive material. Indeed, it is a sort of political gelignite. We are told that gelignite sweats, and I suspect that Ministers who have handled the issue so far have also sweated. The Minister of State, Treasury concealed his embarrassment with a great deal of bluster, but he did not add much except another attempt to describe the events of 1978 as though they were relevant to this year's decision. That is not the case and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) put the issue fairly.
I assure the Minister of State, Treasury and the House that there is a genuine difference of perception and view. When we were in government our approach to top salaries was clearly that people at the top of the public services should be asked to take a lead.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What about the 35 per cent.?

Mr. Shore: Including the 35 per cent. During the period of Labour Government, the real incomes of those on top salaries were considerably reduced. Top people did not have the sort of treatment under a Labour Government that they have received under the present Government. Not only did those on top salaries not even keep pace with the rise in the cost of living under the Labour Government, but they were held well below the average wage increases of ordinary people in that period.
In the present Government's handling of TSRB reports we have witnessed the precise opposite. In the six years that the Government have been in power, the pay of those with top salaries has substantially outstripped the cost of living and even more substantially outstripped the rise in average earnings. It is precisely the recognition of that unfairness and lack of even-handedness that has been noted and deeply resented by the country.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: I shall not give way, because I do not want to encroach on the limited time of the Leader of the House.
We are not debating only a matter of principle, although a principle is involved. I do not have to convince the House that the Labour party generally favours greater equality in earned and unearned incomes, whereas the Conservative party favours greater inequality in those incomes. That is one of the great divides between the two sides of the House. Therefore, our approach is bound to be different and has been different.
The Government's failure to understand the reactions of ordinary people to the review body's report and the Government's acceptance of it has serious practical consequences as well as being a matter of principle. Some of those consequences were stated clearly in The London Standard today. It said:


The point is that the Government is operating a policy on pay restraint, and at a single stroke it has been torn to shreds." 
It goes on to say:
These pay awards will not be forgotten in the lifetime of this Government. They destroy every shred of moral authority it has to lecture the public and private sectors about holding down pay.
The practical consequences of that will face the Government and the country in the Government's inability to find a solution to the teachers' pay dispute. The dispute will go on, the schools will come back in September and, I fear, be subject to further disruption and the House will not be recalled until the end of October, with all kinds of developments, which could be of great damage to millions of families and their children. We shall have been rendered incapable of influencing these events by the lack of any proper debate in the House on a matter which we jolly well ought to have debated.
I believe that the Government have made a profound misjudgment of the national mood. I believe that there is a great and growing resentment of what they have done, and that they would be prudent to accept the amendment.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has concluded the debate for the Opposition with characteristic courtesy. I join him in paying a tribute to all those who have taken part in a wide-ranging consideration of our affairs before we recess.
The debate, like the debate this time last year, has to some extent been hijacked by Front Bench considerations. Last year it was the situation in the coal industry. This year it has reference to the report of the Top Salaries Review Body. I quite understand that. Nonetheless, as Leader of the House, I feel that I have an obligation to take account of the traditional nature of the debate, which is that of Back Benchers raising all the topics which are of concern to them. If I have a somewhat truncated period in which to deal with the fairly well argued matters of the Top Salaries Review Body, I am sure that the House will understand.
First, I pay regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who explained that he could not be present for the reply, in which he said that I should try to secure a direct reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning a constituency case—that of Mr. Michael Thynne, whose parole case is being considered, the right hon. Friend Gentleman thought, somewhat tardily. Of course I will concur with that request, and do all that I can to see that he receives a reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) reminded us of the fortunes of the Kent coalfield, and what good prospects there might be if one could move to much lower cost production. I thought that contribution Appropriate, because this time last year we were locked in the drama and agony of the coal dispute. Now we are liberated from that, and we can think in terms of recreating an industry on a happier basis than hitherto. It is a timely reminder that the processes of conciliation have proceeded. Perhaps it is a pity that we do not have a few days under our belt in which to discuss the coal industry and, more particularly, to inquire a little more closely into the attitude of Opposition Members to the organisation

which is sought by mineworkers in Nottinghamshire and adjacent coalfields, and to hear from them a ringing denunciation of any comparison of that development with the Spencer movement of the 1920s and 1930s. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) would be at my side in urging unity in the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made a powerful speech advocating the interests at stake in his constituency in the face of proposed National Coal Board development. When I campaigned with him some while back, the constituency did not have its current boundaries. I note that its name has been changed by the addition of Kenilworth. I have an uneasy feeling that my hon. Friend has been gentrified.

Mr. Pawsey: I needed it!

Mr. Biffen: Indeed, it is a gentrification which I would welcome. I can understand his concern that there should be use of the 1971 legislation on the planning inquiry commission. I will make the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the NCB has issued a consultative document, and that he will be giving evidence in that context.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made a thoughtful contribution about our future energy requirements. I reflected how Conservative Members should all be struck with great humility because, heaven knows, time and again all the forecasts which have been so confidently assertive about the future energy requirements of the country have been falsified by our experience. I was delighted that he made his observations with what I thought was a correct sense of humility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) told us of the difficulties in his constituency with the peace convoy, and the supplementary benefit situation which affects those involved. I will certainly refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Finally— in the sense of constituency interests — I much appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about coroners' courts, and I will of course reinforce his representations to the Attorney-General on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) discussed the prospects for Northern Ireland in the next few months. It is a great tribute to the attention and dedication which the right hon. Gentleman pays to the House that these debates always feature a contribution which reminds us all that the Province, no less than any other part of the United Kingdom, derives its authority from this Westminster Parliament. I am sure that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who has confidence that the Union will be preserved, will be echoed throughout the Chamber. Of course I understand the points made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. He will not expect me to comment upon them. The physical presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was greater evidence than any words which I could say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) told us of the virtues of wind power as part of the alternative energies. Although one tends to mild hilarity about such thoughts, I strongly underline what my hon. 


Friend said. The benign sources of energy, I suspect, will pay an increasing part in our total energy requirements and, as long as the House remains insensitive to these issues, we will insulate ourselves from what is potentially one of the most destructive facets of our public lives—green politics.
I deal next with the point of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I had a mild exchange with him, because I was anxious to protect our respective positions about Members' interests. I appreciate that there is a very real interest in the House in the Select Committee's report, and an anxiety that it should be debated when Parliament returns in October. But I remind the hon. Gentleman of an incident that occurred in this Chamber earlier today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) objected to something in a Select Committee report which he avowed was untrue. That avowal was immediately accepted because this House proceeds on the basis that a Member's honour and integrity are assumed. When this House is not able to make that assumption, it will not be able to function by its traditional methods.
Of course Members' interests are a perfectly natural topic for anxiety both in this House and outside, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central used the words "the integrity of the House". The integrity of this House is better protected in this debate if it is not laced with innuendo and some kind of McCarthyism. That does not get us anywhere in our objectives, which I believe are common to both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman would think the less of me if I did not say exactly what I meant, but, having said that, I believe that there is a good case for the House turning to that matter in the autumn.
In the closing minutes I wish to deal with the Top Salaries Review Body. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made a powerful contribution on wages councils. I can promise him that the matter will be the subject of debate and hard-fought discussion in the autumn. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) showed thoughtful concern for the pay of the Lord Chancellor. On at least two occasions he could have registered his objection, but he allowed the measure to go through, so it is a little late in the day to develop such acute sensitivity.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) talked about the Labour party having no economic policy. He ended with a rehash of precisely what was Labour party policy in the late 1960s, when the Labour party was fit for Shirley Williams. That is the slogan of contemporary social democracy. It is back to some kind of statutory incomes policy or one that leans heavily upon nudge and wink and political interference and direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) reminded us that the Government had received a shock. He underlined that by saying that he had voted against the Government last night. However, he said he would be voting for the Government this evening. Well, there is no fallen angel like a born-again Tory. I am delighted to receive his support.
A great deal of the argument about the TSRB report related to structure. That is what, in some senses, made the report distinct from other reports. The House had to decide whether, given the judgment of the TSRB about what it thought would be the likely deterioration in the quality of senior ranks of the public service, we should take the remedial anticipatory action that it recommended.
I think that I summarised that fairly. The decision was taken, and whatever its short-term popularity it is of longterm significance and advantage.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) showed an end-of-term spirit. Having been called to make a speech on the basis of an intervention — which I know is an emotionally destabilising experience — he said that the Government were proposing increases of 50 per cent. It is, of course, increases of 15 per cent. I wave farewell to the hon. Gentleman, who is not at this moment with us, and dispatch him with a pocket calculator in the hope that he will come back in the autumn that much better equipped to take part in our debates.
I have tremendous affection for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He fits classically into the Macmillan description of politicians — that they are either bookies or bishops. He has a particular skill, in that he is a bookie on most days of the week and a bishop on Fridays, Thursdays, or whatever day happens to suit him. Today was the bishop's day, 'when we were told that the policy was flawed because it lacked social equity——

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, That the amendment be made, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Periodic adjournments).

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 311.

Division No. 291]
[9.04 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Craigen, J. M.


Alton, David
Crowther, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Dubs, Alfred


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beggs, Roy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Tony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Blair, Anthony
Fisher, Mark


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bruce, Malcolm
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Golding, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Thomas
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)






Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Douglas
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Janner, Hon Greville
Rogers, Allan


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rooker, J. W.


John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Mrs R(W' hampt'n NE)


Kirkwood, Archy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loft house, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Madden, Max
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Tinn, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, R.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wallace, James


Michie, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mikardo, Ian
Wareing, Robert


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Michael


Nellist, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon


Park, George
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. John McWilliam


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Best, Keith
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)





Eggar, Tim
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Key, Robert


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Farr, Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fletcher, Alexander
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lang, Ian


Forth, Eric
Latham, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Franks, Cecil
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Freeman, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fry, Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Galley, Roy
Lester, Jim


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lightbown, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lilley, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lord, Michael


Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Gow, Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
McCrindle, Robert


Grant, Sir Anthony
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Greenway, Harry
Macfarlane, Neil


Gregory, Conal
MacGregor, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Ground, Patrick
Maclean, David John


Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Major, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Malins, Humfrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maples, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Marland, Paul


Hannam, John
Marlow, Antony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Harris, David
Mates, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Mather, Carol


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Mellor, David


Hayes, J.
Merchant, Piers


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger


Hickmet, Richard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Robert
Moore, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hill, James
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hirst, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neale, Gerrard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Needham, Richard


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Newton, Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Normanton, Tom


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Onslow, Cranley


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, Sir John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Irving, Charles
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jackson, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jessel, Toby
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pawsey, James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Porter, Barry






Portillo, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powley, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, David


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walden, George


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watson, John


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Michael


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 26th July do adjourn until Monday 21st October, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 26th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Local Authority Services (Tendering)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Lang.]

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: My objective in initiating this debate is to persuade the Government to consider including in the 1985–86 legislative programme a measure that would compel all local authorities to put perhaps all of their services out to some form of competitive tendering. At present some functions are supposedly undertaken by the private sector. I intend to persuade the Government to consider measures designed specifically to prevent the evasions which are practised and which negate seriously the philosophy behind my proposals.
A simple change in management procedures would Lead to significant financial savings in the services rendered by local authorities to ratepayers and taxpayers. All taxpayers and ratepayers contribute to the money spent by local authorities. The savings would be considerable, and obviously the delivery of the service can be as efficient and effective, if not more so, through the private sector. The margin of choice within the private sector would be sufficient to benefit all local authority services and their recipients—taxpayers and ratepayers.
There are already cases of privatisation and of putting local authority services out to tender. Since about 1980 local government has moved in that direction. Southend was probably the first local authority to privatise rubbish collection. It bravely decided to put rubbish collection out to private tender to see whether its in-house service was effective and, if it was not, to see whether the private sector services, which were beginning to be drawn to the attention of local authorities, could be more cost effective. Southend proceeded and discovered that it was a good idea. Because of that, other authorities, mainly Conservative-controlled ones, were persuaded to discover whether savings could be made, while maintaining cost-effective and efficient services.
The approaches of local authorities were hesitant because it was a new area for them. The advice of their senior officers was negative and they were told that there would be considerable public relations and trade union difficulties. Moreover, local councillors and politicians everywhere tend to be conservative and careful, and to believe that their accountability to ratepayers is such a burden that they must be absolutely certain that their proposals are carefully thought out and will not place a greater burden on taxpayers and ratepayers, whom they are supposed to serve.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My hon. Friend may be coming to one of the most powerful arguments for privatising services, which is the borough of Wandsworth. Such savings have been made there that its rates are now half of those in the neighbouring borough of Lambeth, which persists with the services of its staff.

Mrs. Rumbold: I had every intention of coming to that point, not merely regarding the significant savings made in the London borough of Wandsworth by its brave entry into private sector transactions, but my London borough of Merton, whose courageous leader has led it into new private sector tendering, which has brought considerable savings.
I want to make this point absolutely clear, because it is important. When we talk about the effectiveness of local authorities tendering for services in the private sector, we must always accept that part of the philosophy behind that is to seek financial savings as well as good services and to look for the lowest tender, which had been the practice of every local authority which has gone out to and had dealings with companies in the private sector.
I urge the House to consider carefully that there is always a possibility of councillors, advisers and others making mistakes from time to time. The private sector is not always the absolute panacea. However, the possibility of a mistake and of having to retender is no reason for not pursuing the theory and, I hope, the practice of going out to competitive tender. Local authorities would always be able to extricate themselves from a tender that was proving less than satisfactory. I hope that they would always be able to go back to the market place to get a more suitable tender should the one that they have chosen prove not wholly satisfactory for the ratepayers in the delivery of services.
All that can be clearly demonstrated by boroughs such as Wandsworth and Ealing, which followed Merton in the last financial year and put out to tender its catering services and part of the provision for meals on wheels. The saving was over £700,000 on a £2 million contract — an extensive saving. At a time when local government is rightly under pressure to seek ways in which to reduce expenditure, but does not want to endanger the services that it delivers, it should examine more effective ways of delivering those services. It has been proved beyond doubt that the private sector can help in that regard.
Wandsworth has gone to the private sector for street cleaning, vehicle maintenance and other public cleaning services, and saved more than £1 million on a contract worth nearly £3 million. Many other district and county councils make similar or smaller savings in that way.
This is only the fifth year in which serious attempts to put out to tender have been made and become fashionable. The record of privatisation shows that many local authorities, of which there are well over 500, do not put any of their services out to tender in the private sector. Many have tried to do so and have then retracted. That is an even worse sign that local government lacks the motivation and is suffering from inertia, and therefore needs Government pressure to make it imperative that local authorities put their services out to competitive tender in the private sector.
Only one metropolitan borough outside London —Solihull — is actively involved. At least nine county councils have not put any of their services out to

competitive tender. Even Conservative councils, which should be ideologically sympathetic to the concept, are far from a good example. That is a matter of some shame.
It is important to explain why councillors find it difficult to steel themselves to go out to tender. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the problems. A group of councillors decides to venture into the private sector. The imperative is usually the need to live within a budget. The councillors tell the officers that they have the brilliant idea of putting catering, cleaning or street cleaning out to tender. Many private firms are quick to attract local authorities.
The process is complicated because the officers tell the councillors that the idea is good and that the officers will make a report. Six weeks later, the report says that the idea is excellent and could achieve X or Y savings. The councillors think it is all good stuff and then turn over the page and see the big but. They are told, "If you follow that course, councillor, you will have problems with the work force. You will not make savings for at least two years because the redundancy costs will be enormous. Anyway, the direct labour force could probably come up with just as good an offer. Frankly, councillor, it would be better not to bother."
Many councillors will then consider that there is an election in 18 months and that they do not want difficulties with the work force and an adverse press. The easiest thing is to agree with the officers. The private firm then says that it has taken on board all of the on costs and other things in the complicated tender documents.
The councillors reply, "We will take the offer from the in-house people because, although we shall not make quite the same savings, it is better to keep our people and easier and safer for us."
That is the problem — there is no compulsion for local authorities to go out to the private sector. If local authorities have to go out to competitive tendering, councillors would concentrate less on protecting direct labour and more on getting the best services. There would be plenty of competition because there are plenty of people in the private sector who want to provide local authority services.
We must not set our sights too low in terms of what can be put out to competitive tendering. We have limited ourselves to manual functions such as council house maintenance, street cleaning, rubbish collection, park maintenance, school meals and some social services meals. But that is not nearly enough. Many more local authority services could be put out to competitive tender. There are many accountants, solicitors, surveyors, estate agents and architects in the high street, yet very few of them are employed by local authorities to do a complete job. It is possible to envisage a situation in which the high street professionals are just as much involved in local authority dealings as are the manual workers.
It is high time that we looked at in-house services. I wonder how many administrators in town halls disappear from council lists when contracts for rubbish collection, street cleaning, maintenance or school catering are given to private contractors. I am not saying that local authorities are not good at reducing the number of people that they employ. They have a very good track record. Indeed, it is far better than that of the Government who are supposed to be dedicated to the principle of reducing——

Mr. Jim Craigen: If I follow correctly the hon. Lady's logic, does that mean that the jobs of the town clerk and the director of finance will be put out to tender?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am not opposed to the idea that eventually councils could spend most of their time looking at competitive tenders and very little time looking at whether or not they will have 17 or 18 meetings each month.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend may care to know that when it was Labour controlled the Humberside county council decided to dispense with the services of its chief executive.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many councils have toyed with the idea of dispensing with their chief executives, and many of them have done so. I have not found that many of the authorities that dispensed with the services of their chief executives have been won over to the idea of reappointing them.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Apart from Birmingham.

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, indeed, apart from Birmingham. That says something about the efficiency of local authority chief executives. I hasten to add that I have no prejudice against chief executives. The chief executive of Birmingham is an excellent gentleman who does his job, I am sure, just as competently as when he was the chief adviser to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
It is important to realise that nothing in local government is absolutely sacred. There is nothing sacred about any of our bureaucratic services. We must make it seem important and necessary for local authorities to consider competitive tendering. The sooner we do so, the better will be the services that are provided for the consumer. The ratepayer should be given every possible consideration.
I have no objection to paying some form of local tax, but the local rate or tax that is administered by locally elected councillors, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, should be spent to the best effect upon those who are least able to help themselves. It should not be squandered on massive bureaucracies when those in the private sector could do the job just as effectively for half the price. I urge the Government seriously to consider introducing some form of legislation as early as possible to make competitive tendering an absolute necessity for local government.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) for introducing the debate. She spoke for the vast majority of Conservative Members. Indeed, 205 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 895, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), which states:
That this House believes that, in the interest of obtaining better value for money, local authorities should be required by law to submit to competitive tender a wider range of their functions and services.
I hope that the Government will pay attention to the strong feelings among Conservative Members, and will recognise our disappointment if the Queen's Speech in November does not contain a provision to extend contracting out and privatising in local authorities. It has

been of great benefit to the ratepayers in the authorities where it has already been tried. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, with her customary eloquence, deployed the arguments with irrefutable logic. I hope that that view will be shared by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and that, even if he cannot leak the details of the Queen's Speech in public, he will at least give us a hint of what it will contain.
The argument behind our request that local authorities should be required to put out contracts to tender is that councillors are trustees of ratepayers' money. The little empires over which they preside, with their chief officers and all their employees, are not there for their benefit or to boost their pride; they are there to serve ratepayers and to provide value for money. Competition inevitably produces a downward pressure on costs and an upward pressure on standards. If that spur is removed, there is bound to be a diminution in standards and an increase in costs. That benefits no one except those who derive their incomes from the inefficiency which it disguises.
Those municipal empires should be broken up where there is palpably no will among those who are presently responsible to break them up. That would be in the interests of ratepayers and of those who benefit from the services provided by local authorities. Therefore, I disagree with my seven hon. Friends who signed an amendment to early-day motion 895, saying that it would be an attack on local democracy. It would be precisely the opposite. It would achieve what is desired by ratepayers in many parts of the country, even in areas that are Conservative-controlled, but which they are being denied.
There are many theoretical arguments to show why competition would be likely to reduce costs and improve standards. The experience of the private sector should be ample evidence. Many companies do not have so-called direct labour departments, because they believe that it is much more efficient to contract out their cleaning services and office maintenance provision. The reason is that contractors must provide high standards. If they do not, they will lose the contract. During the contract period, they may render themselves liable to penalties. With a direct labour department, it is almost impossible to apply discipline, because it is difficult to dismiss employees. However, it is easy to end a contract or to sue someone who has breached a contract. The person who purchases the services provided by a contractor removes from his overheads the worries and other complications that arise from running an in-house service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden so eloquently explained, considerable cost savings can be made. As a ratepayer in the borough of Wandsworth, I am well aware of the great benefits that I have derived from the eight years of Tory control. That was first under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who can be said to have pioneered this drive to efficiency in local government. This was recognised by Her Majesty, who made him an officer of the Order of the British Empire. We might extend the honours system to encourage councillors to provide the benefits provided by my hon. Friend for myself and other Wandsworth ratepayers as an alternative to making competitive tendering compulsory. This might be a more efficacious way to achieve the beneficial results that we all desire.
The difference between the borough of Wandsworth and the borough of Lambeth, part of which is represented


by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), is marked. They have similar populations, about 250,000 inhabitants, but the number of staff employed to provide identical services is radically different. In Wandsworth, for example, there are 1,300 labourers, whereas in Lambeth there are 3,500. In Wandsworth, there are nearly 3,000 non-manual workers, whereas in Lambeth there are over 5,000. The borough rate in Wandsworth is 26·44p in the pound, whereas in Lambeth it is 129·34p in the pound. Between 1979 and 1983 Wandsworth decreased spending by 6 per cent. whereas Lambeth increased spending by 69 per cent.
The costs of the services provided by the authorities are directly responsible for the difference between those two figures. For example, refuse collection in Wandsworth costs £8·70 per head a year, whereas in Lambeth it is more than twice that—£17·58 a head. Caretaking costs £8·81 a head a year in Wandsworth and £25 in Lambeth. Street clearing costs £3·38 a head a year in Wandsworth and £9·17 a head a year in Lambeth.
Nobody visiting those two boroughs would think that Wandsworth's provision of services is any less expensive than it is in Lambeth. The difference in cost is accounted for entirely by the differences in efficiency. One could go through the services that Wandsworth has either contracted out or privatised and compare that with Lambeth and other boroughs and come to the same conclusion. I fail to see what arguments can be deployed against making it compulsory for local authorities to provide value for money in the provision of services for their ratepayers.
It is a mystery to me why, given the difficulties that the Department of the Environment has had with local government in recent years, particularly with rate capping, we have not fastened upon this before now as a means of keeping the rates down, thus obviating the necessity to introduce rate capping, which has been controversial. Such a move would not be controversial except for those who have something to hide or an empire to defend and are frightened of opening themselves to the spur of competition with somebody who would be more efficient in providing the same service.
We know how defensive the unions can be. They employ not logic but the bully-boy tactics that we saw in the miners' strike. In Wandsworth, some appalling examples of violence occurred in the early years when the council was contracting services out. Machinery was vandalised, lorries burnt out, sugar and sand put into fuel tanks of vehicles, tyres slashed, hydraulic systems severed, depots and offices burgled, papers and work rotas stolen. This abominable story occurred in other local authorities. Where such people cannot succeed with argument, rationality, logic and experience, they will resort to the bully-boy tactics which have happily proved ineffective but which, for those who had to suffer them, are frightening.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Did the National Council for Civil Liberties demand an inquiry into these actions in the same way as it did in the miners' strike?

Mr. Hamilton: I regret to say that my knowledge of the National Council for Civil Liberties is hearsay only. I am not a member of that organisation, and will probably now be disqualified from membership, as its concern for civil liberties seems to be rather partial.
The experience of recent years is clear. It must now be in the interests of all ratepayers to oblige authorities to put contracts out to tender. Nobody is saying they have to be awarded to private enterprise, because if a direct labour organisation can produce a competitive tender, the work can be awarded to it. Many factors then have to be borne in mind to decide whether the contracts are being awarded on the same terms, but the evidence from authorities around the country appears to be that the requirements placed on contractors are much more onerous than those placed upon the direct labour organisations. Some of my hon. Friends who are hoping to speak might dilate upon that.
I will content myself with those few remarks, and seek to reinforce what I said at the beginning to my hon. Friend the Minister: there will be grave disappointment in the country if we do not take this radical but beneficial step which will benefit ratepayers and will also at the end of the day electorally benefit the Conservative party. That is not something which in present circumstances we are entitled to ignore.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on having the inspiration to call this debate, and on the eloquence with which she has deployed her powerful arguments, ably seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
I must declare an interest. I am a ratepayer, and as such I have a vested interest in keeping my rates as low as possible and keeping the quality of my services as high as possible. There is only one conceivable way in which those twin objectives can be reached, and that is by improving the efficiency with which services are provided. There is only one way in which the efficiency of services can be improved, and that is to give those who provide and manage the services a financial incentive. The most likely way to achieve that is to follow the suggestions in this debate and introduce compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services.
There is ample evidence that competitive tendering works when it is applied. There is even evidence that it works when it is merely sniffed at. In every case where local authorities have suggested looking at compulsory tendering, savings have been found with almost miraculous ease by those providing the services in-house. Trade unions came forward with suggestions for improvements in manning which they had long resisted, and managements came forward with suggestions for new techniques and new ways of approaching problems which they had for years failed to suggest to elected members. If the smell of competitive tendering produces those desirable results, tasting it is likely to be even better.
The second piece of evidence that competitive tendering works is that it is applied by commercial companies. I recently visited a number of companies in my constituency and had the pleasure of eating in their canteens. In each case I asked the management who had provided the canteen facilities and I was told that management had contracted it out to the most efficient and most competitive supplier. I was told that that had been done not simply to save money on the service but also to save time and involvement in supplying a facility which


was necessary for the staff, in which management had no particular expertise and did not want to become unnecessarily involved.
I have visited a BUPA hospital in my constituency which puts its cleaning service out to tender. It goes much further than the state sector because the cleaners are not only required to clean the floors, but are responsible for ensuring that all the services in the wards and rooms in which they work operate effectively —that light bulbs and loo rolls are replaced, and so on. The hospital gets additional value for money from its cleaning services.
The third piece of evidence that competitive tendering works is that it is already applied by many local authorities that have made well-documented savings on various services by replacing in-house facilities with outside contractors.
In the blissful days when the district council in my constituency was still in the hands of the Tories, it contracted out the cleaning of toilets. In that small aspect of local government, the council saved £20,000 per annum to the benefit of the ratepayer, while improving the quality and cleanliness of the toilets so that people actually used them.
It is noteworthy how far people go to try to conceal the obvious savings that are being made by contracting out services. We saw an extraordinary example of that attitude in the sixth report of the Select Committee on Social Services which said that the £9 million savings made by putting NHS services out to tender constituted a saving of only 1 per cent. The Committee said that that was a derisory amount, but it failed to say that the saving was about 1 per cent. of the NHS budget, but more like 25 per cent. of the budget for the services that were contracted out. That shows the scope for savings if the practice is extended more widely throughout the NHS and among local authorities.
My main purpose is to emphasise that savings made by contracting out services are almost invariably far greater in the long term than those that can be measured in the short term. When a local authority contracts out a service, it makes the easily measurable, short-term savings in increased efficiency, but it also gains the immeasurable long-term benefit of flexibility.
We live in a changing world and demands for services are constantly changing, as are ways of supplying those services. If the supply is in-house, the council is fixed to a method and quantity of provision and it is difficult for it to adapt to changing needs and opportunities. Consequently, one finds throughout local government services that reflect past demands and not current needs. The ability of local authorities to adapt is hindered by the fact that they have a vested interest in the continued provision of a service.
If a local authority has regularly bought in its architectural services and requires less architecture and building for a while, it ceases to buy in so much service. The onus is then on the architects to find work elsewhere, which they are geared to do.
The long-term savings from contracting out are far greater than the short-term savings, which are already large enough to justify our making it compulsory for local authorities to go out to tender much more.
We should consider whether it ought to be compulsory for local authorities that contract out to use an external contractor or whether they should be allowed to continue using in-house services if they can show themselves to be

as competitive or nearly as competitive as external contractors. Most of my hon. Friends would accept that in-house services should be allowed to win the competitive tendering process and continue to provide services. The reason why some people would advise against that possibility is that they believe that the contracting-out process is inevitably biased in favour of the in-house service and that no proper measurement can be made of the costs that that service imposes on the ratepayers.
Plenty of contentious costings have occurred in contracting out. In my local area, the North-West Hertfordshire health authority considered contracting out laundry services. It concluded that its in-house supplier was more efficient than any outside supplier. I have received a letter from an organisation called the Association of British Laundry, Cleaning and Rental Services, which claims that the costings of the area health authority concealed the fact that many costs were not taken account of when the in-house facility won the contract. I know many of the people in my local area health authority. They are able and competent people, and I am inclined to believe them rather than this body, with which I have no connections.
If the in-house service is more competitive than the private enterprise competitor, surely the in-house service should be hived off as a separate unit and enabled itself to compete in the market place and to provide the service. If the public sector has built up expertise and ability to satisfy demand more efficiently than the private sector yet can, the in-house services should be liberated to extend their provision. Indeed, my area health authority laundry service already caters for other hospitals from further afield, not just St. Albans. Surely those excellent and efficient local workers should be enabled to operate more commercially, and provide the benefits of their efficiency to other aspects of the Health Service. A similar process should take place in the local authorities when competitive tendering is extended to them.
If the in-house service in an area proves competitive and effective, the law should be changed to encourage and enable it to be set up as a commercial enterprise competing in the market place and extending its skills.
I join other hon. Members in urging the Government to recognise that this policy should be a pivotal part of the strategy in improving the quality and reducing the cost provision of the public sector. I hope that legislation will be introduced before too long to ensure that the country and my constituents gain the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering as soon as possible.

Mr. George Gardiner: I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution to the debate, which was opened so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). My hon. Friend has summarised the arguments so eloquently and others of my hon. Friends have amplified them so effectively that there is not a great deal left to say.
My hon. Friends gave their own examples and the experience of councils that have gone to privatisation and competitive tendering, starting with the pioneer work at Southend. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to the experience in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) gave eloquent evidence of the experience in Wandsworth. These are not isolated examples.
Anybody who consults an admirable publication entitled "The Public Service Review", which is backed up by a distinguished academic council on these matters, and details all the developments in an admirable way, will see a long list of local authorities — apart from health authorities, which are also covered—that have made substantial annual savings as a result of putting out certain works to competitive tendering.
We make a mistake if we concentrate entirely on the financial gains that are to be achieved for ratepayers. In many cases, real improvements are made in the quality of service. As it is so well documented, I refer to the experience of the city of Bath. In 1983, it awarded contracts for four municipal services, street cleaning, domestic refuse collection, trade refuse collection and public convenience cleaning to a private contractor, which got on with the job quickly and efficiently and established good local relations with the employing council and the local population.
It is interesting that six months after the contractor had begun work, the local daily newspaper, the Bath and West Evening Chronicle, which I know well, printed a questionnaire asking its readers what they thought of the new service. Ninety three per cent. said that the service was at least as good as hitherto and, significantly, more than one third said that it was far better. The ratepayers of Bath said that it was a welcome all-round improvement; that the dustmen kept to their scheduled days and were more reliable; that the services were provided by a civil and obliging work force and that in every respect the service that they were receiving was superior to the previous service. In addition, the council will save £1 million over a five-year period.
With those benefits available, why do not more local councils take up the opportunities offered by this policy? My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden summarised the sort of restricted choices sometimes put to councillors by their officers. Undoubtedly, the activities of many of the public service unions, organised and coordinated by the National Union of Public Employees in particular, constitute a positive disincentive to local authority leaders wishing to embark on that road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton listed the gruesome experiences of workers in Wandsworth when services were first privatised. Many councillors have said that they do not want to suffer a similar experience. That is why I argue that local councils need the protection of a statutory duty to go for competitive tendering. That will protect them against bullying.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said. I and many of my hon. Friends will be deeply disappointed if there is not a positive reference to this matter in the Queen's Speech and if steps are not taken in the coming Session to achieve far wider competitive tendering in local council services.
It is an appropriate day to say that I yearn for some popular decisions and popular policies to emerge from our Government. I have the feeling sometimes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, perhaps, forgotten what it is to be popular in the policies that he advances. Perhaps he shies away from it from fear of the unknown. I hope that I am being unfair to him and that in his review of these matters he will recognise that

the policy that more than 200 of my hon. Friends have endorsed in an early-day motion will be popular not only throughout the Conservative party but in the country.

Mr. Michael Brown: I echo the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) that more than 200 of our hon. Friends have signed the early-day motion. It is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment could embrace in the certain knowledge that on the Conservative Benches it will be a policy which is popular and successful and which will be endorsed in the Division Lobbies.
It has been a difficult year for Ministers at the Department of the Environment. They have had to pilot through contentious legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now invited to envisage legislation for next Session which would have the support of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) explained, in an eloquent speech containing some fine examples to support the case she was making, why that support would be forthcoming.
My county council of Humberside was Conservative controlled until 1981. I am pleased to say that, after the local elections earlier this year, it is again Conservative controlled. The policy of privatisation was clearly endorsed by the electorate who, having had the opportunity of privatisation removed from them between 1981 and 1985, now recognise the penalty that they had to pay for not having Conservative representation locally. As they voted they recalled the high rate demands that had been imposed on them during those four years.
However, there is a hesitancy to take positive action on the part of some local authorities which are still in pawn, as it were, to their chief executives and chief officers. I confess that the councillors in one of the district councils which I represent and which is Conservative controlled are more frightened of the council officials than of the electorate. I suspect, however, that as we move towards the 1987 district council elections, those Conservative councillors will recognise, as have Liberal councillors, the power of the electorate over the permanent officials.
There is a reluctance on the part of less professional councillors to initiate action which would conflict with that of the permanent officials. I am not criticising councillors who are not particularly professional. They bring to bear their experience of public life and it is important to have that reflected in local authorities. However, they become victims of the power of public officials, and I regret to say that there are some Conservative-controlled authorities in which the non-elected professional official is more concerned for the empire over which he presides than for savings that can be made for the ratepayer. Many disappointed Conservative voters look to the Government to redress the balance where there has been an overbearing influence on the part of public officials over the elected representatives.
I need not add to the illustrations that have been given by my hon. Friends of savings that have been made in recent years. Bath, among other local authorities, has been mentioned. I have with me a list showing every authority that has voluntarily submitted itself to competitive tendering. The document contains the local authorities, contractors and savings that have been achieved, and it is


interesting to note that in the financial year 1984–85, the savings totalled £31,106,785. Ratepayers of every political complexion were saved that sum by local authorities which submitted themselves to competitive tender.
The time has come when we have had sufficient experience of competition in this sphere for the Secretary of State to acknowledge that if £31 million-odd could be saved by those local authorities, enormous additional sums could be saved if every local authority tried to achieve similar economies.
I accept that there are some professional well run in-house services that are as efficient as any private enterprise service, but competitive tendering would enable the in-house service to prove its efficiency. Unfortunately, my experience of voluntary competitive tendering is not a happy one. The local councillors of one of the authorities in my constituency decided finally to take note of the electors' voice and to accept competitive tendering. The lowest tender was provided by a private contractor, but the power and the voice of a public official was such that he had an overbearing influence on the councillors. Accordingly, they were minded to invite the in-house service to re-submit a new and lower tender. That is not good practice. Ratepayers should be protected from that experience by legislation, which Ministers at the Department of the Environment have the authority to bring to the House.
A relevant early-day motion has been tabled this year and the same motion was tabled in the 1983–84 Session, when it was supported by over 200 of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment richly deserves some popularity and the early-day motions on this issue signal that if the necessary piece of legislation is introduced in the next Queen's speech, it will have the support of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members and that of the overwhelming majority of ratepayers and voters throughout the kingdom.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on initiating the debate. Likewise, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on having contributed to it in such a spirited fashion. It has been a useful debate and many interesting arguments have been advanced on the advantages of competitive tendering.
One of the most distinguishing features of the previous Labour Government, much to the chagrin of many Labour Members, was their virtual surrender of policy-making to the trade unions. When the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was repealed, the trade unions were given the right to immunity over a wide range of industrial disruption practices. Direct labour organisation and dock workers were given exclusive rights to jobs. Like Cromwell's new model army, trade union organisation became a monster. Finally, in the winter of discontent, it throttled its masters, and in 1979 the Labour Government fell, to be replaced by a Conservative Government. Some of the slogans that appeared at that time illustrated clearly what was going on. When the gravediggers were on strike, the following slogan appeared, "Vote Labour and dig your own grave".
It had become clear at that time to the British public that the monopoly supply of public services in the state sector

had concentrated power in the hands of politically inspired union leaders. That led to an undesirable stranglehold over the public, with costly and inefficient services to boot. I put my remarks in this context because contracting out is not designed, as has been suggested by the unions, to line the pockets of private contractors. It has been designed for three specific purposes: first, to ensure that there are multiple sources of supply of services to prevent patients and the public from being held to ransom; secondly, to ensure the cost-effective supply of those services—often saving substantial sums of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money—and, thirdly, to ensure that those who supply the services can have the benefits of working in the private sector
It is thanks in large measure to the efforts of my lion. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) that the concept of contracting out local authority services has rapidly taken hold. It is true that a number of United Kingdom companies have already been engaged in the provision of ancillary services—for example, Crothall and Co. has been responsible for all the domestic services at Stoke Mandeville hospital for no less than 23 years. There is nothing new about what is happening. Crothall's parent company, Pritchards, and companies like Grand Met are extensively active overseas earning valuable foreign exchange for the United Kingdom.
What has been the record to date? According to the "Public Services Review", which an excellent publication —we can provide you with a copy Mr. Speaker, should you so desire because, if you find the rest of tonight's debate boring, it would make fascinating reading—no less than £31 million in public funds will be saved by using private companies instead of in-house labour to provide public services. Many of those savings have come from the NHS. The Select Committee's report was misleading in this respect. If the savings that have been made so far in the 3 per cent. of hospitals that have put their services out to tender were translated across the board, about £200 million would be saved—a substantial sum.
I welcome the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)—gave on 29 May when he said:
The competitive tendering policy in the NHS is proving a great success. These are real savings in the cost of support services. They are not being achieved by lowering standards.
Significant annual savings have also come from local authorities. In Southend, the street cleaning operation has saved £600,000. Under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen about £2,670,000 per annum is being saved. Wandsworth will be the first local authority in London to hand over council estate caretaking to a private firm. That company will employ 23 caretakers and is expected to save the council £400,000 per annum and to give improved services.
It looks as though this is a catching mood, because not only is the Conservative party committed to this policy but the Liberals appear to have jumped on to another bandwagon — this time a sensible one. That is extraordinary. I notice that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) has joined us. It is a pity Liberal Members were not here earlier to hear much that would have enlightened them. Six Liberals on Bristol city council recently supported a Conservative proposal calling for all council work over £20,000 to be open to competition.


instead of being handed to the council's direct labour organisation. Last year, the DLO lost more than £2 million. As the Liberal deputy leader on the council said:
We don't want to keep the organisation afloat by feather-bedding. It must become viable and efficient.
Undoubtedly, those words will haunt his colleagues when they find themselves voting for Socialist measures.
Further progress is threatened for three reasons. First, some Conservative local authorities are reluctant to put their services out to tender. They think somehow that going out to tender is an admission of their inefficiency. A couple of years ago, I asked my father, who was a member of the council of the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, what services he had put out to tender that week. He said, "We have the finest refuse collection service in the country." When I said, "Put it out to tender and then you will see whether it is right" he was less than keen to do so.
Tendering should not be seen as an admission of inefficiency. It is felt that the public sector alone can handle these matters, but we must not forget that the private sector provides our fighter aircraft and our food. The private sector can provide those goods.
The second reason why further progress is threatened is union sabotage. Mr. Sid Cresswell, branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, commenting on his campaign against the privatisation of refuse collection by Rugby borough council, said:

We have to meet atom bombs with atom bombs.
In many other cases the unions are clearly endeavouring to prevent the privatisation programme from continuing by disrupting it. I hope that Opposition Members will reject that.
The third reason is because of the unfair conditions being imposed on private contractors. I shall cite two examples. First, to compare like with unlike, in-house departments, sometimes intentionally and sometimes in all innocence, omit overhead costs from their tenders. Typically, they include a share of central administration costs, such as payroll, training and recruitment. Other examples abound. Secondly, regarding obstructive contract conditions, NUPE's education pack,
Improve Public Services … Shut Out Contractors
—note that contradiction—states
If action to prevent the council (or by implication health authority) proceeding with tenders fails, then the next tactic should be to make the tendering conditions as tough as possible. Imposing conditions will cost the contractor money and that means (his) tenders will be higher.
That is absolutely disgraceful.
Competitive tendering has been a proven road to greater efficiency of operation, reduced burdens on the ratepayer, and better job satisfaction for the employees. To encourage our more timid councillors of all three parties, I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will take back to his Department the clear message from my hon. Friends and me that we should like to see compulsory competitive tendering in the next Queen's speech.

Orders of the Day — Local Authority Services (Tendering)

Mr. John Fraser: There are many propositions on competitive tendering. The first is that every service or all goods that are bought in by a local authority should be subject to competitive tender. I endorse that proposition, and have helped it by tabling an amendment to the Competition Act 1980, as a result of which local authorities can be accused of anti-competitive practices if they try to have cosy anti-competitive arrangements, for example for demolition contracting. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on that.
The second proposition was adopted by the Government in 1980 with the Local Government Act 1980. It is that direct works departments should be subject to tendering. From that comes a further development in the Government consultative document, which is that some other services should be put out to competitive tendering, not as a matter of choice for an elected local authority, but of compulsion. It includes refuse collecting, cleaning buildings and vehicle maintenance.
Tonight a fourth proposition is being argued, which is that virtually every service run by a local authority should, if possible, be put out to private tender. That seems to fit in with some of the Government's suggestions, for example on housing management, and that the ownership of housing should be placed in the private sector. In other words, there should be limitless opportunities for the private sector to compete.
The Opposition agree that ratepayers are entitled to efficiency from their local authorities. I constantly urge my local authority to be efficient and to get value for money, as I am sure many hon. Members do with theirs. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Competition Bill, as it was.
We are not opposed to direct labour organisations being able to compete on fair and equal terms and being exposed to the wind of competition. For instance, in Sunderland, the passenger transport executive is putting the construction of a bus station out to tender. Previously bus stations were built by the direct labour organisation. We see no reason why the direct labour organisation should not even be able to compete with people in the private sector. That is an excellent idea.
One often sees large scale renovations undertaken by direct labour organisations. One or two houses on an estate bought by people under the right-to-buy legislation might need a new roof as badly as houses owned by the local authority. We see no reason why a direct labour organisation should not be entitled to compete with the private sector on such house renovation and improvement work. The odd thing is that in several contributions to the debate we have not had a single word about such competition from the public sector——

Mr. Lilley: rose——

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way, as I am short of time.
The GLC's supplies department is now being broken up. It has added a great deal to the competitive buying edge of local authorities in Greater London.
Those matters should be subject to the choice and judgment of the local authority, not compulsion. Local

authorities are entitled to make a rounded judgment on how they spend their money and provide their services. Those are matters for local authorities chosen by electors who have a vote. If electors do not like the way in which a local authority is conducting its affairs, they can change those arrangements.
Local authorities are also entitled to consider a wider measure of performance than mere price, such as the quality of service and the fulfilment of social objectives. They can take account of employment policies, equal opportunities among different races, and the elimination of sexual discrimination, for example. The real reason for debates such as this, for the one-sided attack on local authorities and the desire to push out to competitive tendering, is that Conservative Members want the private sector to get more noses in the trough and to make more profits. Those profits are made with low pay, lack of security and the Government's 20th century version of slave labour——

Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, lichen): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, because I must press on.
The Government want those profits to be made through the abolition of wages councils. They want to see Tory strength through suffering—the strength of the private sector at the expense of those who work for some of the services put out to tender.
The Government are concerned that not enough noses are in the trough. Even some Tory authorities are cutting off that access to private profit making. Many of the district councils are controlled by the Conservative party. I know what Conservative Members are worried about. Despite all the propaganda and the fact that we have had a Tory Government since 1979, they are worried that the number of local authorities that go out to private tender is dropping in the light of experience. It has dropped from about 12 per cent. in 1982–83 to 11·3 per cent. in 1984. In Scotland, only Orkney and Shetland goes out to tender. Conservative Members are concerned that not enough is happening. In the words of Rodney Bickerstaffe, they know — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, him."] That gives the game away. They know the cost of privatisation. In Wandsworth, Merton, Dudley, Eastbourne and Gloucester there have been unswept streets, uncut grass, uncollected rubbish, late, missing or cold meals, thousands of people thrown on to the dole queue and an exploited work force. Local authorities are entitled to make a judgment.
We should consider what companies are undertaking the work. Reckitt Cleaning Services does cleaning for local authorites and hospitals and has interests in other parts of the world. It has interests in South Africa where it employs 2,000 staff. It has just opened a new factory outside Johannesburg. It is investing in South Africa when many firms are taking investment out, sometimes under pressure from their Governments, as a sign of their disagreement with what is happening there. A local authority is entitled to say that it does not want to employ a firm that wants to invest in South Africa.
There is worse——

Mr. Michael Forsyth: How does it make its profits? Selling mustard.

Mr. Fraser: I will tell the hon. Gentleman how it makes its profits. Virtually all of its employees in local


authority cleaning servics are employed for less than 16 hours a week. That is deliberate—they therefore have no protection against unfair dismissal and have few labour rights under their terms of employment.

Mr. Forsyth: rose——

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way.
ICC Cleaning Services has been employed by some local authorites. [HON. MEMBERS: "NUPE."] Yes, I am quoting from a NUPE document. I am very grateful to NUPE. I am sure that I am as grateful to NUPE as the Tory party is to ICC Cleaning Services, the parent company of which gave £3,250 to the Tory party in 1984, which won a contract to clean schools in Shepway. Officials had to alert Kent county council to the fact that there were uncleaned schools and that the firm had to draft in cleaners from London and Essex because a local recruitment drive had failed. There were headlines in local papers saying:
Cleaners Crisis May Shut Down Schools.
Heads of schools were worried about the operation of that firm.
We should consider how these cleaning firms make their money. I shall give some examples of the grave abuses. Staff are employed part-time, so they are subject to instant dismissal. In one well-known case, the staff were subject to dismissal even for taking a tea break. There has been outright refusal to recognise trade union membership, as happened, for example, with the Victoria Cleaning Company. There has been a case of compulsory weekend work in a six-day week for which the remuneration was only £62·90 — I refer to ISC. Other companies have given no holiday entitlement.
In many cases, the profit is made by lowering the pay and conditions of employees. A local authority, which has a social objective, not a profit objective, is entitled to make a judgment about proper terms and conditions of employment and about what is in the best interests of the community as a whole, rather than just shareholders.
Office Cleaning Services is a typical company. A Conservative Member of Parliament is one of its parliamentary consultants. Wages in that company have been driven down while the director's pay increased by 42 per cent. in 1982–83. In direct labour organisations, more than the price for the job has to be taken into account. There are other social responsibilities such as training. One of the results of competitive tendering has been a 36 per cent. reduction in apprentices being trained by local authorities. We do not need any lessons from the Government. On capital finance for local authorities, a member of the Audit Commission was able to tell the Government:
If I were asked to design a system that would produce more waste and inefficiency to control capital expenditure it is not immediately certain to me what additional complication I would build in".
We know the reason for this assault on local government. It is an assault on their democracy and autonomy and it is intended to bring profits into private purses at the expense of the pay and conditions of working people who are already badly off.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for

Norwood (Mr. Fraser) started his speech quite well. He reminded us that when he was in office he was on the side of the consumer, championing their interests against the vested interests of other large organisations. He even made a passing criticism of the extravagance of Lambeth council, but towards the end of his speech there was a Pavlovian over-reaction. Having to listen for an hour and a half to six speeches from my hon. Friends was obviously too much for him.
There was a lot of emotional ranting about snouts in the trough and a list of what he regards as abuses. But what about the abuses on the other side? Look at what is happening in Southwark's social services department; look at the abuses in Liverpool city council, where there is far too close a relationship between the direct labour organisation and the councillors; look at the restrictive practices in Lambeth. The hon. Member for Norwood said that these matters should be left to the good sense of the local authorities, but as my hon. Friends showed during the debate, a whole range of abuses have been introduced by local authorities to make sure that a choice cannot effectively be made.
For example, in Chesterfield Mr. Ernest Grosvenor, a caterer, has been barred from catering for next month's banquet for the new mayor of Chesterfield because he provided tea and sandwiches for the police during the miners' strike. Mr. Bill Flanagan, the Labour leader of the council, said:
Mr. Grosvenor has been blacklisted for feeding policemen drafted into the area to confront strikers during the pits dispute.
If one looks at what Labour councillors get up to in order to avoid the existing regulations, it is no argument to say that this should be left to the good sense of local authorities; where there is a good case they will put it out to tender; otherwise they will leave it to the DLOs. In Burnley, the DLO put in a bid that was £90,000 higher than the contractor's bid, but it subsequently reduced it, by various means, to bring it below the outside figure. I received in today's post some minutes from Councillor Lobenstein, a Conservative councillor in Hackney, giving details of how Hackney had abused its position and reduced its price, after all the other tenders had been opened, in order to get a particular item of work.
In opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) put the case absolutely correctly when she said that the Government are not insisting that everything should be put out to tender, because that is not a universal panacea. She said that outside contractors should be invited to put in bids in competition with the DLOs to see who could provide the best deal for the ratepayer. I do not understand how anybody can possibly object to that.
As my hon. Friends made clear, good, efficient DLOs have nothing to fear from Government policies that have already been introduced, or from those that my hon. Friends urge us to implement. Indeed, in 1975 the then Under-Secretary of State in my Department—a Labour Minister—said that the efficiency of the direct labour departments would be tested in competition with private contractors. That is exactly what my hon. Friends have been urging the Government to do for the last hour and a half. The emotional response of the hon. Member for Norwood to the sensible and realistic package of proposals put forward by my hon. Friends does him no credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) reminded us of the contrast between the rates paid in


Wandsworth and in Lambeth, a point that was followed up by a number of my hon. Friends. Ever solicitous of the fortunes of Ministers in the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friends urged us to find popular legislation which the Department could introduce and which my hon. Friends could support with a spring in their step in the Division Lobby. The right-to-buy policy was introduced by my Department. That has been successful. Many of my hon. Friends have urged my Department to introduce very quickly more legislation to build on the initiatives that we have already introduced. I thought I detected some impatience among my hon. Friends about legislation from my Department. After the abolition Bill and rate capping, I thought they might have seen enough of Ministers from the Department of the Environment. However, I was heartened to hear my hon. Friends say that they want even more legislation from the Department, which they would be more than happy to support.
May I outline the position that we have reached? As my hon. Friends know, in February this year, we sent out a consultative document with some proposals for building on the initiatives that we have already introduced, and extending the obligation to go out to tender to several other services. We have received about 400 representations. Nothing in them has affected our determination to proceed down this path. We are convinced that it is right and, what is more, we have seen growing evidence from other commentators in this area that more should be done.
For example, in a recent publication, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy reported:
Competition offered by private contractors has undoubtedly contributed towards the general improvements in performance measures of council operated refuse collection in recent years.
Speaking of the existing DLO legislation, the chief executive of West Midlands metropolitan county council —a well-respected officer on local government—said:
The DLO legislation has resulted in increased efficiency and improvements in accountability that were long overdue.

Those who run the DLOs in local government say that, for the first time, our legislation has enabled them to manage, instead of being at the mercy of spendthrift councils and militant unions. Of course if is far easier to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement if one puts services out to tender than it is if one relies completely on in-house services, which are often dominated by local government trade unions.
The Municipal Journal, which does not always support the Conservative Government's initiatives, states:
It is regrettable that these improvements"——
the improvements in the DLOs—
resulted from initiatives taken by Government rather than local government professionals.
The question is not whether there should be competition, but how we can extend it.
My hon. Friends asked me this evening to give commitments about the Queen's Speech in a few months' time. Their argument is that we must build on the momentum of tendering and extend the advantages to other services. My hon. Friends will understand if I say that it is not within my gift to outline the proposals in the Queen's Speech. That is for others. As I am sure they know, there are always more bids for legislation than can be accommodated, and the Government will have to take some hard decisions. I say that on the day when the House has voted, with a fairly substantial majority, to rise at the end of this week—not a day too soon, in my view. We must weight the merits of the legislation that has been urged on us this evening against other attractive packages, which I know my hon. Friends hope will be included in the Queen's Speech.
Of course my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have noted the substantial number of Back-Bench Members who have signed early-day motion 895. That is eloquent testimony of the strength of feeling that has been demonstrated in tonight's debate. I shall ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are made aware of those strong feelings.

Orders of the Day — South Africa

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is right that the House should not rise for the recess before it discusses in more detail than we could today at Question Time the current position in South Africa. We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us a longer debate than the one that has just ended. It will give us the opportunity to deploy some of the arguments at length and, I hope, allow the Government to deploy their arguments on a position that is clearly changing hourly.
Discrimination against people for various reasons is widespread on our planet. Our task should be to expose and oppose it wherever we find it. Without doubt—my hon. Friends will agree with me entirely—the most evil form of discrimination is that based on the colour of a person's skin. A Government whose existence depends on such discrimination are, by their nature, an evil Government. South Africa has such a Government. It is an evil system, where the Government rule by terror, and we should play no part in sustaining them. That is one of the reasons why we wish to put some reasoned questions to the Government about why they are not changing their policy.
By any international definition, South Africa is a high risk and unstable country. This has to be taken on board as much by those—if there are any left—who think of emigrating there as by those who are trustees of investment funds and have to approve investments there. There is no obligation on the trustee of a pension fund to approve investments in a high risk, unstable country.
For decades, warnings have been given inside and outside the House, and inside and outside the country, that South Africa would one day blow apart unless its rulers abandoned the evil system of apartheid. These warnings have been ignored both inside South Africa and, by and large, by United Kingdom companies operating there. There is the classic situation of a lack of movement and a stubborness to respond to reasonable demand, leading in the end to a clash that will be more serious and violent than it would have been if reasonable demands had been met.
As we sit here in the comfort and security of the Mother of Parliaments and debate the issues of the day, people are being arrested without charge—665 in the past few days —and are being killed by the hour. Concerned human beings around the world have trembled as they switched to the broadcasts of the past few days. World leaders, in the West in particular, are beginning to wake up, and we hope that our Government are not last in the queue.
We do not have to go back too far to see how much complacency there was in the West. I do not intend to recite the catalogue of history, as I need go back only a few months. I quote one question and answer in a press conference in December last year, just after the United States President had met Bishop Tutu. The questioner asked President Reagan:
But the regime has become more repressive and the arrests have increased. Would you consider any kind of economic sanctions? And do you feel that your policies have, at all, given credibility to that regime?
President Reagan answered:
I know that there has been a surge of violence here and there, and that has resulted in violence from the other side. We regret this. But, as I say, I think the policy we're following—and it

wouldn't be quiet diplomacy any more if I started talking about things openly — but, we have made solid progress, and we want to continue doing that.
In December last year, he was talking about "solid progress" and "quiet diplomacy". He now talks about "constructive engagement", a phrase that our Government have picked up parrot fashion. It means nothing, although the Minister may try' to explain to us later what it means. At the moment, there is constant violence, a state of emergency in South Africa, with literally hundreds of people killed in the past few months. There was another large massacre on the 25th anniversary of Sharpeville, which came after the United States President spoke. People in South Africa are disappearing, in the well-known way of South America. There will be a catalogue of people who have disappeared.
Since President Reagan spoke, at least the Senate and the House of Representatives have voted for some form of economic sanctions. They have not voted for the same form, and I understand that discussions on that are taking place. At least the United States Government recalled their ambassador after the raid into Botswana—a raid purely designed to take out the peaceful opposition.
As an aside, I thank the Foreign Office and the Home Office for enabling two young teenagers to make a quick trip to Botswana to attend the funeral of their uncle, who was killed there, by making passports available. I know the Minister of State who deals with South Africa has put on record the Government's position about what happened.
We do not want our country to become isolated on the issue of South Africa. Between Question Time in the House today and this debate, it appears that France has moved. It has recalled its ambassador and has taken a United Nations initiative and banned all new investment. Some months ago, France was threatening to ban new investment after 18 months if things did not change. France has now responded to the changed situation and is to be commended.
I have a slight criticism of the BBC. When this was being reported on the "PM" programme earlier this evening, the BBC reporter in a London studio spoke to a reporter in France, and could not resist asking him if the news would be welcomed in France or would it be seen as a sop to the Left wing. The reporter in Paris said the public in France were scandalised by what was happening in South Africa. I do not know why the BBC have to put that kind of innuendo about a French action designed to meet the situation.
Norway has initiated a ban on the flights of Scandinavian Airlines System to South Africa. There will be no new investment from Sweden or Denmark, and Canada has also taken action. The Republic of Ireland has considered economic sanctions, although I admit it has been pushed on by what the South Africans would describe as 11 urban guerillas working for a Dublin supermarket. They were sacked for refusing to handle Outspan oranges and grapefruit at a checkout as a sign of solidarity over what was happening in South Africa. At least that Government have taken cognisance of that and they have to be followed by other Governments. New Zealand has called it a day and has broken off diplomatic relations.
When the United States imposes some kind of economic sanctions, as everyone knows it will, our Government will look stupid and isolated—until the day that we fall into line and then we will look like a client state


of the United States. That situation can be avoided. We do not want it to arise and, I suspect, neither does the Government. It is in their hands to do something about it.
I am not sure whether the Foreign Secretary in his speech yesterday called for six bold steps, or said that if anyone wanted to take six bold steps, here they were, or whether he said, "Here are the ones we think should be taken, and this is what we are going to do to see they are taken." I am not sure what he said, but I expect the Minister will give us more details. The Foreign Secretary called for the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela; for an end to forced removals and detention without trial; an early end to the state of emergency; for progress on the abolition of discriminatory legislation; and for a commitment to some form of common citizenship. I would welcome an elaboration on the words "some form".
We also want to know what plans Her Majesty's Government have for turning the six bold steps the Foreign Secretary talked about into reality? Have the Government imposed a time limit before they will take some action to try to make the South African Government do something about the situation? Do the Government think that those six bold steps add up to political equality in South Africa? Do they think they meet that test? A generation of young South African blacks under the age of 24 have lived all their lives while Nelson Mandela has been in prison. Look at their existence today. They do not have a vote and 3½ million of them are unemployed. That is one in seven whereas the figure is one in 60 for the whites. They see after 23 years that there is still a stubborn refusal on the part of the white regime to meet and discuss the issues of political equality. They are told, in effect, that they will remain subjugated by the whites. In heaven's name, what is their choice? They will fight for freedom, as people all over the world will fight for freedom — to echo the phrases that the Prime Minister has used in the House—and they will fight in the knowledge that they will suffer most in the early part of the struggle. But they have no other road to take. They will pay the price that others have had to pay if they wanted to be free.
That is the position facing the young blacks. Their future looks hopeless and terrible. I wonder what people expect them to do when they see no hope. In the interview published in The Times today, Nelson Mandela was asked about one aspect of the "six bold steps". I accept that the interviewer said that the interview was conducted without notes, but the report says:
I asked Mandela if he took hope for the Government amending laws banning interracial marriage and easing laws that limit black entry into urban areas. He smiled: 'you are speaking about pinpricks', he said. 'Frankly, it is not my ambition to marry a white woman or to swim in a white pool. The central issue is political equality. Our programme is clear', Mandela went on. 'It is based on three principles: a unified South Africa —no artificial `homelands'; black representation in the central Parliament, not membership in the kind of apartheid assemblies that have been newly established for the Coloureds and the Asians; and one man, one vote.'
How does that square with the "six bold steps" for which the Foreign Secretary has called and how can it be related to the situation facing young blacks in South Africa?

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the start of his speech. Perhaps he told the House when he was last in South Africa. If not, I hope that he will inform us. The hon.

Gentleman proposes economic sanctions against South Africa, but will he tell us on whom those sanctions will bear?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. It goes without saying that I have never been to South Africa. One does not need to go to South Africa to understand the British Government's relations with that country.
Why have Governments of both parties tried to impose restrictions, conditions and codes of conduct on British companies operating in South Africa? There must be a reason for that. Even the Government understand that there is a problem. Otherwise, they would not propose codes of conduct. Is the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) saying that there is no problem in South Africa?
I accept that people in South Africa know that they will have to pay a price. It is easy for me in the security of the Mother of Parliaments to say that I will help to impose that price on them. Some in South Africa say that sanctions will hurt them more than the Government, but people are prepared to pay a price for freedom. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict me, I shall argue that case with him, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will recite chapter and verse how Governments have imposed economic sanctions to bring about changes in internal conditions in countries with which we disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. In this case, the ends justify the means because of the refusal over decades of the South African Government to act reasonably towards the majority of citizens in their own country.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is almost inane? Before the war, Labour Members could have been asked whether they had been to Nazi Germany. Was it necessary for people to go to Hitler's Germany to understand the terrible tyranny there? Is not it unfortunate that a number of Conservative Members go to South Africa quite frequently as guests of the South African authorities?

Mr. Rooker: I could not have responded better than my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wiggin: rose——

Mr. Rooker: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare is prepared to participate in the debate, I assume that, should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to make his own speech, as he is clearly such an expert on the situation.
We are told that British companies can help by following the code of conduct. I know that the code of conduct has been changed over the years and incorporated into European situations, but I want to raise two questions on the code, which British companies are supposed to follow. Why on earth should the blacks in South Africa have to rely on the company house, the company bus, the company school or the company medical centre as a wary of improving their living standards? These are all points in the code of conduct. It is the right of the blacks in their own country to be able to organise the Government and the running of these facilities for themselves. It should not be for the British Government to say to a British company,


Help create the odd company town to help the blacks, because their own Government are not interested in doing it".
I raise this matter because some of these companies are the same companies which, in the United Kingdom, have refused British workers the right to hold ballots on political funds at the workplace. How on earth can we trust multinational companies which act in that way in our own country to do the right thing thousands of miles away in South Africa? They clearly cannot be trusted.
According to a reply to a parliamentary question on 2 July, United Kingdom exports of data processing equipment since 1982 have jumped into second place as our principal export commodity. Data processing equipment is the very equipment for running the bureaucracy of apartheid, and the exports should be stopped. The equipment did not appear on the list three years ago. The only use for it is in assisting that bureaucracy.
There are plenty of places in the world from which to get fruit and vegetables other than South Africa. It is not necessary for supermarkets to deal almost exclusively in products from South Africa. It is not necessary to fill up the stores with Cape and Outspan. People do not have to buy it, the supermarkets do not have to stock it and we should not have to import it. I accept that, in the early period, this would have a damaging impact on the economy of South Africa, but it is the purpose of economic sanctions to have a damaging impact so that the South African Government will effect some internal changes to bring about a situation acceptable to the civilised world.
What do we want from the Government? I will list a few points, and my hon. Friends can develop others. Will the Government and the Minister condemn the new apartheid constitution? I do not know whether the Minister has gone on record as condemning it. Will the Government support sanctions on the question of Namibian independence? We ought to have an answer to that before the international discussions which are to take place later this year. Will the Government stop blocking the efforts at the United Nations to improve collective international measures? Indeed, will they support today's new initiative of France, a country which is our closest geographical partner in the European Community? Will the Government agree to meet the President of the African National Congress for consultation? Will the Government implement the arms embargo strictly? It should be borne in mind that earlier this months five people were sentenced at Birmingham Crown court for arms smuggling. That may still be an issue which entrepreneurs somewhere are considering, and stricter implementation of the arms embargo is necessary. Will the Government accept the 10-point plan of the anti-apartheid movement?
Ministers can change their policy. I would rather that they followed the French and withdrew our ambassador for consultations than that they followed the Americans later. As sure as night follows day, when the Americans move, we follow them. I do not want that to happen. I hope that the Government will respond tonight to the changing position in South Africa in at least the same minimal way that the French Government have responded.

Sir Patrick Wall: About 20 years ago I found myself as the British representative on the third committee of the United Nations which dealt with colonial problems. My references to apartheid caused official complaints from the then South African Foreign Minister. At that time I and a number of my hon. Friends now in the House fought to keep Cape coloureds on the parliamentary lists. The Nationalist Government removed them and have now put them back into Parliament. We objected to the gerrymandering of the boundaries by the Nationalist Government to favour their party in the elections.
Since then I have visited South Africa many times and I have always made a point of talking to black African leaders such as Chief Buthelezi, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and Mr. Motlana of the Soweto committee of 10. Each visit showed me a change, although slow, for the better. Under President Botha these changes have accelerated. Black trade unions are now legal: they were not some years ago. Pass laws, mixed marriages and influx control are being altered or abolished. That is progress. The Indians and the coloureds now have seats in Parliament — perhaps in a separate Chamber, but they have seats and votes. A commission of the Cabinet is sitting to try to find a constitution for the future of the black majority in South Africa. Their probable place in the kaleidoscope of states was explained to me some years ago. As yet it is not official, but we hope that the commission will report in the near future.
The trouble is that when there is a loosening of controls, those who want revolution rather than evolution resort automatically to violence. How can this House demand an end to the state of emergency when more than 500 black men have been killed mainly by fellow blacks—not by the police? They have been killed by members of the ANC or UDF. Would we like to listen to a debate in the South African Parliament interfering with our relations in Northern Ireland? How can we demand the release of Nelson Mandela when he refuses to give up violence? Would we release a convicted leader of the IRA if he refused to do the same in similar circumstances? Of course we would not. The trouble is that here, in the United States and in Europe, South Africa is equated with a European country and is treated by European standards. South Africa is not a European country. it is an African country. To be fair, we must compare what happens in South Africa with what happens in other African states such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana and so on. Then we shall have a fair perspective. But that is not done by the western nations, which is part of the trouble.
It is estimated that 1·5 million blacks from other countries may now be working in South Africa, and on whose work some 10 million non-South African blacks depend for their livelihoods. In other words, they prefer South Africa, with all its imperfections and all its racial overtones, to their own countries, ruled often by dictators or generals.
Our colonial history has shown that once we proceed along the road to liberalisation, there is violence, followed by concessions, followed by more violence, followed by a hand-over to a group or a tribe and then one man, one vote, once.
South Africa is not a colony. It is the most powerful industrialised state in the continent of Africa. The Government of South Africa will not, for reasons that must


be obvious to everybody, surrender to the concept of one man one vote. They see the consequences of that in the rest of Africa, where there are not large numbers of indigenous white people. They want progress towards some form of confederation between the various racial groups. That will take time to achieve, but it cannot be achieved under the threat of violence.
By all means let us apply moral pressure on the South African Government to move faster, but it is wrong to use that country as a whipping boy, and it would be wrong to impose sanctions or disinvestment. That would only cause the Afrikaaner section of the population to laager up and have disastrous effects on the black population, whose leaders are almost wholly opposed either to sanctions or to disinvestment.
Who can deny that progress was being made before the latest violence started? Only 2·9 per cent. of all job categories are now reserved for whites. It was a much higher percentage only five or six years ago. About 1·3 million people are members of 77 black or mixed trade unions. There were no African trade unions some years ago. Black workers' salaries increased by 40 per cent. between 1970 and 1979. The incomes of black people in South Africa are two to five times higher than in other independent African states. That is why the country attracts so many people from those African states. In 1970, the ratio of black workers' salaries to those of whites was 25 to 75 per cent. By 1980, that gap had been narrowed to 40 to 60 per cent. respectively. In other words, the salaries of the blacks are moving up rapidly, and there is now quite a large black middle class.
Since 1970, black wages have risen in real terms by 95 per cent., compared with a rise in white wages of 11 per cent. Thus, a levelling up is taking place. Not enough is being done, many will say, but give them time. All of that would be destroyed by revolution, which, there is no question in my mind is desired by some Opposition Members. Bloody revolution would destroy the whole country, and that would delight some of them.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the paradox? If the situation for blacks in South Africa is as beneficial to them as he suggests, why is it necessary to deny them the vote that would enable them to express their satisfaction with the system?

Sir Patrick Wall: I am not saying that it is entirely beneficial for the blacks. I am simply suggesting that to bring them to equality, economically and politically, takes time and education, and that is not fully widespread at present. [Interruption.] If we imposed sanctions or disinvestment, black Africans would receive little education. One need only think of some of the other countries in the continent.
Nor should we lose sight of British interests. Those are often forgotten by some hon. Members. British investments in the Republic of South Africa are said to total £3 billion. Many British jobs would be at stake if, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested we were to impose sanctions. South Africa controls many of the world's key minerals, not to mention the Cape oil route.
In a black Marxist state, or even in a non-aligned state that we should see if somebody such as Nelson Mandela came to power, would South Africa be likely to be a friend

of the West in any future conflict? I doubt it. One need only look at some of the other states, for example, a little further north at Zimbabwe.
To sum up, we should stop comparing South Africa with Europe. They are completely unalike. Give the South Africans time. They have moved, and they are moving faster than ever before under P. W. Botha. Give them a little more time and I am sure that they will evolve a prosperous society which is fair to all. Their leaders—black, white, coloured or Indian—face the most difficlt task in the world today. They will succeed if only we stop interfering with them.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) has defended southern African regimes for a long time, including South Africa itself, what was Southern Rhodesia and a number of other countries, some of which were occupied by Portugal. He is well known for his views. He has lost out on all these places except South Africa, and I am convinced that he will lose out there as well.

Sir Patrick Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with what has happened in Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe and many other countries, either economically or politically?

Mr. Winnick: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman would like to revert to the former colonialism. When I said that he would lose out on South Africa, I meant that the regime and the sort of rule which he defends will not win. It is that to which I shall address myself, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), whom I congratulate on initiating this important debate.
No one should be surprised by events in recent months in South Africa. They are the inevitable results of policies pursued since the National Party won the election in 1948. All the instruments of the South African state have been used to oppress, harass and humiliate the large majority of that country's people. It is said that changes have taken place, but in the main the changes have been cosmetic. They have done nothing to give the African majority basic political and human rights. The hon. Member for Beverley has spoken about outside pressure; even the small changes which have taken place have arisen only because of international pressure. Does anyone imagine that there would have been any modification in the apartheid system if there had not been international pressure?

Mr. Wiggin: Of course there would. Has the hon. Gentleman been to South Africa?

Mr. Winnick: It was said that international pressure would merely harden the attitude of the authorities. There has been that pressure, and it will continue as long as the majority are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. That is the reason for the unrest and the explosion in South Africa over recent months. That explains the renewed interest in the country, especially in the United States as well as some European countries, and the events taking place within it.
Many of us deeply resent the attitude of the Minister of State's ministerial counterpart, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who I understand is now in Moscow. When he was interviewed on the radio the other day he gave a sort of lecture about Bishop


Huddleston. We deeply respect the bishop, who has championed human rights and proved himself to be a steadfast campaigner against apartheid. Someone like him does not require any lectures from Ministers.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way now.

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Winnick: Not now. I am not giving way at this moment. I remember listening to and watching Bishop Huddleston interviewed as long ago as 1960 on "Panorama", when he was explaining the boycott of South African goods that was about to be imposed. Even before 1960—those who have read his book will understand—he was a steadfast champion of human rights in South Africa.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman should be fair to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The criticism that he made of Bishop Huddleston was directed to his attack upon Alan Paton, the writer, whom he described as a broken man when the latter was criticising disinvestment. My hon. Friend was criticising the bishop for that reason and not because of the position that he held generally.

Mr. Winnick: The interview to which I listened made it clear to me that the Minister was wider in his criticism of Bishop Huddleston. What a contrast between the bishop and others like him, including of course Bishop Tutu in South Africa, and the attitude of the Prime Minister, who last year welcomed Mr. Botha to Britain. He was given a warm reception by her and he was a distinguished state guest. No doubt the Prime Minister told him that changes were necessary in South Africa. Mr. Botha expected her to urge changes along those lines. She was only going through a ritual.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Gorbachev?

Mr. Winnick: The Prime Minister is not at all concerned about events in South Africa. She went through the ritual of telling the South African Prime Minister that certain changes were necessary, but she had no deep commitment. The Prime Minister has no greater commitment to fundamental changes in South Africa than the Conservative Members who are busy heckling me.
I welcome, as far as it goes, the statement on the state of emergency in South Africa issued by the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. We should bear it in mind, though, that more than 50 per cent. of foreign investment in South Africa comes from EEC member states. Britain remains the biggest single investor, with £7 billion of investment, accounting for 10 per cent. of total British overseas investment. A good part of the capital that should be invested in Britain to create employment goes to places such as South Africa. More than 600 British firms have invested there, some of them heavily. A third of the leading British firms in South Africa do not recognise independent black unions. Many invest to make the maximum profit by paying the lowest possible wage in a place where black employees cannot bargain collectively over conditions. These companies have a profitable stake in apartheid.
Conservative Members who do not like criticism of one of their favourite states will have to accept that their view differs greatly from ours. Let us give some credit to the Tory party—the views that are being expressed by the half a dozen Tory Members in the Chamber do not reflect, I hope, the views of the majority of that party.
I warmly welcome the French Government's action which was announced today. They were right to say that no more investment will go to South Africa. I am also pleased that they have recalled their ambassador. At Question time today I said that the British ambassador should be recalled. The trouble with the British Government is that they give the impression that they are firm allies of the South African authorities. They do not want to take any action that would be seen in South Africa and on the international scene as liable to cause embarrassment there.
There should be a policy of disinvestment towards South Africa; disinvestment along the lines announced today by the French Government should be pursued by the British Government. However long the fight, the African majority and its allies will win their rights in South Africa.
The hon. Member for Beverley said that some of us want revolution in South Africa. Surely this has been the essence of the argument all along—as long as apartheid continues and the large majority are denied their rights, there are bound to be events that lead to conditions like those at present. There is no better way of achieving outright revolution in South Africa than continuing with the policy that has been followed in that country since 1948. For all we know, some of the Conservative Members who are present may be underground revolutionaries who pretend to be otherwise. Perhaps their motive is the very revolution about which they warn.
On what side of the struggle in South Africa is Britain to be seen? For a long time we have said that the British labour movement is on the side of the oppressed majority in South Africa. We have made our position clear at conference after conference in the Labour party and in the trade unions. We shall want firm action by the next Labour Government, including economic sanctions. We want the United Kingdom completely to dissociate itself from the tyranny in South Africa.
There are many repressive regimes in the world, and I would be the last to claim that South Africa is the only tyranny. There are far too many dictatorships and regimes which my hon. Friends and I would in no way defend or condone. Some are in Africa and some are elsewhere, and there have been many in the past. However, there is one obvious difference between the tyranny in South Africa and other repressive regimes, which some Conservative Members refuse to acknowledge, which is that only in South Africa is one penalised from the moment one is born to the day one dies for one reason—the colour of one's skin. Even present Ministers have acknowledged that. No other regime is based on that vile principle. That is why there is such strength of feeling, and why, during the past months, the United States Senate has passed resolutions and the groundswell there has continued to press for firmer and far more effective action by their Government against South Africa.
There is no doubt in my mind that the people of South Africa will win their rights, despite the Conservative Right wing. No doubt there were such Tory MPs before the war. When Labour Members, such as Philip Noel-Baker raised the plight of what was happening in Nazi Germany, such


people said, "Why exaggerate? Why should we interfere in the internal affairs of Germany? What business is it of ours? Has the hon. Gentleman been to Germany?"—the same sort of reaction as that from Conservative Members tonight.
The Labour party stands with the large majority of people in South Africa—the blacks, the coloureds and their white allies. We want to see fundamental changes, and apartheid destroyed. Our message to them is that we are on the side of those who fight to overcome the evil that exists there, we stand for the liberation of South Africa, and we shall not yield any more than we have done in the past. We support Nelson Mandela and his colleagues, and I hope that the Government will adopt the same attitude.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Among men without hope there is no insurrection. When expectation rises, violence erupts. The Government of President Botha have aroused expectations by constitutional and other reforms, which only a few years ago most people would have thought impossible.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the changes and improvements in South Africa were merely cosmetic, but I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) cited examples of the withering away of many aspects of apartheid. Nowadays white soldiers and policemen salute black commissioned officers. A decade ago, few would have imagined that Indians, coloureds and whites would combine in a parliamentary partnership and in government. That achievement serves to magnify the sense of grievance of blacks, now politically awakened but left outside the new parliamentary process.
The homelands are not merely to be dismissed and decried. They are as independent and as dependent as some other states in Africa. Nor is the Transkei, for example, just a barren waste. But the National party no longer regards the homeland policy as any solution, and by giving title to black householders in Soweto, the authorities have in effect announced the demise of apartheid. Nor can they expect anything other than black discontent with unemployment as high as it is—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to this — and 16 per cent. inflation. Black discontent will not be assuaged by even the most admirable schemes of local self-government.
There are movements in South Africa today that reject reforms because their aim is revolution. Often in the townships, vicious and murderous attacks on mayors and councillors, policemen and policewomen, are directed against the agents of evolutionary change by the forces of revolution. What has been happening in the townships is bad enough, but it should not be exaggerated. It is localised and is largely confined to the Rand and the eastern Cape.
There is complaint opposite of the state of emergency. I fancy that, if one were an ordinary black in a disturbed township, one would be less likely to complain that a state of emergency had been imposed. Like the violence, the state of emergency is localised, covering 36 magisterial districts——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Out of 300.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: —as my hon. Friend says, out of about 300. It is the duty of any Government to try

to keep order and to protect life and property. This state of emergency prevails in part of the republic of South Africa, but emergency powers exist in a part of the United Kingdom. I know that they are challenged by the Opposition, but the state of emergency is challenged in South Africa, in parliamentary debate and question, and in the columns of a free press. In the republic of South Africa, there is an independent judiciary, and a judicial commission set up by the Government has censured police excesses and called for urgent reforms. In which other African country could these things happen?
The sanctions called for by the Opposition can only do harm. They can put British workers out of a job and ruin South African workers and producers, coloured and black. Have we not learnt anything from Rhodesian sanctions? They harden resistance, and Afrikaners are not soft people. They induce economic self-sufficiency, and they work to the disadvantage of former trading partners. Have not African states suffered enough from Rhodesian sanctions? They would suffer at least as grieviously if they were deprived of their trade with South Africa and the aid that they get from South Africa.
Disinvestment is called for by the Opposition. Thai has been rejected as a policy by Bishop Tutu. Frankly, I am not impressed by the withdrawal of the French ambassador. The French conduct their diplomacy and commerce with dexterity. There is an arms embargo, subscribed to by France, and France has replaced Britain in the supply of the South African navy. Indeed, had the Labour Government not denounced the Simonstown agreement, the hazardous operation for the liberation of the Falkland Islands could have been undertaken at less cost.
This very complex and agonising question of South Africa is bedevilled by humbug, self-righteousness, double standards and a willingness to sacrifice human life — overwhelmingly black African human life — to abstract principles of little interest to the poor and the hungry.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On this very point, I——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am about to conclude.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will assure us that it is the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to maintain the trade and influence of the United Kingdom, using that influence to encourage President Botha and his colleagues to persevere in dialogue. In the wise words of the Times leader of 23 July,
he should be encouraged to stand firmly behind his reforms and to contain his emergency measures required to protect blacks who support his regime from the bloody fate which has overcome so many of them.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on the topic he has introduced this evening and on the way in which he introduced it. I must say, though, that, on looking around the House, I feel it is perhaps a shame that a more widespread body of opinion is not represented on the Government Benches that might have participated in the debate. It seems to be a particular strand of Conservative opinion that wishes to involve itself in this debate. As I did not hear the radio broadcast which has been referred to and which involved the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), I can only speak


as I find him in the House. I want to put on record my tribute to his forthright responses at Question Time on the issues of South Africa and apartheid.
Conservative Members have asked previous speakers in the debate whether they have been to South Africa. I have been there, although not for any great length of time. I had a job at one time that took me to parts of white Africa generally. There are great problems for those of us in such jobs who wish to go there partly, I suspect, because if one has any sensitivity one finds it virtually impossible to conform to the restrictions placed upon one. I found it difficult, if not impossible, to conform to signs that said "Whites only" or "Blacks only". I could not do that.
In addition, those of us who were involved in work with various groups in and out of Mozambique or Zimbabwe particularly found it difficult to work with people who were conscious that there were informers about the place. My presence with them was therefore in some way a challenge to their safety. It is not always easy to travel in those circumstances. One must thus discuss with a certain amount of candour what action is actually effective. I do not believe that many Conservative Members wish to maintain the present system. The difference in approach by hon. Members on both sides is in respect of how change is achieved. It is at that level that one's remarks and intentions should be related.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Meadowcroft: I shall develop my remarks a little further and then I shall willingly do so.
It is often a mistake to underestimate the skills of the South African regime in maintaining itself. At times, it gives little tokens which appear to contain the substance of change, such as the Bantustans. At times, the regime has worked quietly to undermine other countries such as Lesotho, which is wholly contained within the Republic of South Africa. It has given tokens in Namibia as if it was the reality of change when it was not. It has sought to undermine the precarious stability of Angola by involving itself with Unita within that country. That is all part and parcel of a trend. Latterly, to the surprise of many people who have to consider and deal with the situation in South Africa, the regime managed to find some basis of agreement with Mozambique, partly because of the pressure that was put on that country in its economic difficulties after independence. All those are interesting ways and means of demonstrating South Africa's skills in maintaining its own unpleasant and oppressive regime. We must address ourselves to the situation that we face in the light of what we have seen in recent years.

Mr. Corbyn: I was intrigued by a statement that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, that the only thing that divides hon. Members is not whether but how apartheid should be abolished. Does he seriously believe that all the Conservative Members who have such close links with the present South African regime seriously want to get rid of apartheid? Are they not acting in the House as apologists for the apartheid regime?

Mr. Winnick: Some of them are paid.

Mr. Meadowcroft: During many years in politics, not just in the House, I have always tried to work on the basis

that, just as I object to people trying to attribute to me motives that I do not possess, I am not prepared to try to look into people's hearts and minds. I dislike what Conservative Members——

Mr. Winnick: They are paid. Mr. John Carlisle: Name them.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I dislike what Conservative Members say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The sedentary arguments across the Floor are not helping the debate in any way. If an hon. Member wants to intervene, he should do so in the proper way.

Mr. Winnick: I entirely take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker which was perhaps directed at me. However, I hope that I can draw your attention to the way in which the same sort of interruptions were made constantly during my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was talking about sedentary dialogue across the Chamber, not just sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I fear that if some hon. Members lead with their chin, they always get it punched.
I am distressed by Conservative Members' remarks. I reject their arguments, but I am not prepared to say that they have an ulterior motive. If they have, so be it, but they must speak for themselves.
I am anxious to find ways and means of altering the oppressive regime, which is the disastrous consequence of the history of that continent. It is crucial that Conservative Members realise that and it is the other side of the coin. Their attitude is unfortunately self-fulfilling of the conditions that they talk about. If one says that the regimes that might follow will be unstable, that people are incapable of assuming office, that they are Marxists and that people who are now in prison are not safe to be released, it is as certain as night follows day that when change takes place, there will be instability, Marxist regimes and the oppressive regimes that we have seen elsewhere in Africa.
The problem is that if one resists people's ordinary aspirations and democratic desires, it is almost certain that there will be instability thereafter. That is true whether it is in Zimbabwe, with the imprisonment of Robert Mugabe for so many years, the present situation where black is killing black because of the complete frustration and inability to achieve democratic change, or the history of what happened in Kenya with Kenyatta and in Cyprus with Makarios. People who were thought to be terrorists eventually had to become the leaders of their countries, and had to be treated with. It would have been better had we not had such appalling attitudes to them beforehand.
Throughout my time working in South Africa, I found black leaders impressive. It was sad that because they could not achieve their legitimate aspirations, some were assassinated before they could achieve office. One of the great problems is the loss of leadership in black Africa because of the failure on the part of whites to give way when they should and let people assume office.
Sovereignty is a confusing and difficult problem. The boundaries of many of the states in Africa are not logical, partly because they were divided 100 years ago by a convention, with the consequence that natural tribes are divided between countries. That in itself causes instability.


Unless one addresses that problem, and looks at pan-Africanism and what one might do in terms of sovereignty, there will continue to be difficulties.
Which policies might have some effect? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) legitimately, emotionally and properly expressed moral outrage. I feel exactly the same moral outrage, but it is not a policy or a strategy. It will not bring about change.
The recent history of Zimbabwe shows that the thought that sanctions could bring down Rhodesia was a falsity. Countries under such pressure will consider what might be done from outside and plan for sanctions. That will certainly be true of South Africa. There is no way that sanctions imposed by Britain alone would be effective. If sanctions are to have any chance of being effective, there must be unanimity on the part of the European Community and the United States. Unless the hon. Gentleman believes that that is possible, he is displaying no more than moral outrage. I do not reject the importance of having personal standards. I will not buy produce from South Africa, but I do not pretend that my not buying such produce will bring down the regime there.
Conservative Members have asked who gets hurt by sanctions. I do not doubt that, in the short term, blacks would probably get hurt most. That is not such an important consideration in South Africa. What matters is whether the people are prepared to accept the consequences of sanctions. One of the slogans of African nationalism is that they prefer the poverty of freedom to the riches of slavery. There is no validity in the paternalistic argument that we know what is best for the African people, that we know that they will suffer and that we will therefore maintain a certain economic standard.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a rational case and the House is grateful to him. Is he aware that Professor Schlemmer has undertaken precisely the type of survey that the hon. Gentleman is talking about? An overwhelming majority of black South Africans have stated in two surveys that they are utterly opposed to disinvestment in their country. Will the hon. Gentleman give credit to the black people for voicing their opinions through those surveys?

Mr. Meadowcroft: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is illegal in South Africa to call for a boycott. People there are so aware of informers in the black and white communities that no survey could properly represent the feelings of people there. Those who have been to South Africa and felt the repression there because of paid informers would never suggest that such a survey could be accurate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Schlemmer report is a survey of 551 male black production workers in multinational companies and that their views were thought to represent the views of more than 20 million people? If the views of the African people are to be taken into account, why are they not given a vote and a real choice rather than a public opinion survey?

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the flaw in the argument of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If matters are progressing so well, it is strange that the South African Government are not prepared to test it at the ballot box.
Many of us who have worked to end the apartheid system have viewed with trepidation the approaching disorder and instability that now exists. None of us wanted that, but we believed that it was inevitable. We might be seeing the beginning of the end. If that is true, I take no comfort from the fact that it is ending in this way because many people will get killed and others will get hurt in the process. Bearing in mind the concessions that have been made, the South African Government might even now realise that they cannot maintain apartheid and would like to get rid of it but cannot because they have only a white electorate. Then the paradox would be that if there were a wider franchise they could get rid of apartheid and achieve what they may already accept as inevitable. Therefore it behoves this Government to say to the South African Government with all the diplomatic force that they can bring to bear that only one immediate step can be taken which might save South Africa from a bloodbath: the release of Nelson Mandela. That step must be taken as quickly as possible. Change might then be introduced more peacefully than will otherwise be the case.
Whenever I look around the world I realise that liberty never comes easily. I sometimes wonder why we in this country believe that the liberties that we would fight for are gained easily. They are not. They are gained by a lot of sweat, struggle and toil. That will be the case in southern Africa. Those hon. Members who care deeply about the people in that country are not satisfied with moral outrage or with ritual confrontation across these Benches. We are interested in effective action. I hope the Government will bring pressure to bear by taking the kind of action that will solve this problem once and for all.

Mr. John Carlisle: The House will have enjoyed most of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). He spoke a great deal of sense and brought a somewhat calmer atmosphere to the various altercations we have had on both sides of the House on southern Africa Many hon. Members are grateful to him for the tone of his remarks. He will understand that I do not entirely agree with all that he said; however, he introduced a fresh approach to this debate, which Conservative Members welcome.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for the fact that I missed his opening speech, but I welcome him to the ranks of those who are interested in southern Africa. I hope that he will take part in future debates on this subject, because future debates there will obviously be. It is interesting that Labour Members have, as usual, turned out in force tonight, although perhaps not so many as turned out for the South Africa (Sanctions) Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I understand that they were under a very heavy three-line Whip to attend a vote that did not take place. There are probably more Labour Members in the Chamber tonight than we have seen since the debate on the Queen's speech in 1979.
Apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which was characteristically boisterous and characteristically inaccurate, I think that so far it has been a fairly sensible debate. I refer in particular to the contributions of my hon. Friends. The Leader of the Opposition, who is now on the African continent, may return with a rather deeper knowledge of that country than


he had before he went there. He may bring to our debates some sense of experience, which Conservative Members, but not Opposition Members, are able to bring to bear.
South Africa always seems to be a fairly convenient whipping boy for Opposition Members. Understandably, they are outraged by the so-called violation of human rights in Southern Africa, just as they are outraged by the so-called violation of human rights in other parts of the world. Where we take issue with them is that, in their persistent arguments about South Africa, they rather conveniently forget what goes on elsewhere. If they showed the same passion about events in Chile, South America and behind the Iron Curtain as they show about South Africa, I think Conservative Members would accept their arguments with a little more understanding.
The argument about South Africa in this House will always be on the basis of whether or not apartheid is acceptable. We in this country believe that it is an unacceptable form of government and an unacceptable form of society. The argument is whether that system can be dismantled overnight, whether the pace of change can be dictated by the British Government or by this House, or whether the reason for the existence of that system should be understood. Before the hon. Member for Walsall, North jumps to his feet I will say again, as I have said before, that I deplore apartheid, but I understand the reason for its existence. Understanding of the system by Conservative Members will help to dismantle it in a far more humane way than will the histrionics that are so often displayed by Opposition Members.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I give way to the histrionic Member who is about to rise.

Mr. Winnick: We know the views of the hon. Member, but may I return to his earlier remarks, when he said that Labour Members were selective. Does he know of any dictatorship that I have defended? Have I not constantly criticised the regime in Chile and the junta in Argentina? Have I not criticised eastern Europe? If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about these matters, he would know that I have criticised eastern European politics in some Labour movement journals, and I shall continue to do so. The explanation is simple. I am a democratic Socialist. I favour parliamentary democracy, and I oppose dictatorships completely.
Why does not the hon. Gentleman try to answer the point I made earlier? South Africa is different, in that it is a racial tyranny. Therefore, people are penalised, not for their politics or for anything they do, but because of the colour of their skin.

Mr. Carlisle: I am an avid follower of the hon. Gentleman's career and of what he says in the House. As a keen supporter of parliamentary democracy, he will understand that, even in the parliamentary democracies that we have bequeathed to Commonwealth countries, there are systems of apartheid. In the context of South Africa having been a member of the British colonial empire, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would compare the systems that still exist in some black African and other Commonwealth countries with the one in South Africa. If he did so, I might listen to what he says with a little more understanding.
Since hon. Members know my views on the subject, I shall confine my remarks to three subjects. The first must be the reaction of the British Government and people to the events in South Africa during the past few days—events that have been vividly portrayed on television and in the press. I say immediately how sad it is to see the terrible atrocities that have taken place in South Africa, mainly — as those of us who are interested in such matters will know—of the black communities attacking other black communities; of blacks attacking their elected representatives within their communities; of blacks attacking policemen; of blacks attacking administrators; and of the terrible atrocities that have not been reported.
This afternoon, at Question Time, when I asked about the alleged cannibalism, Opposition Members were surprised. They must understand that such things are happening in the present troubles such is the depth of the problems in South Africa.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Carlisle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but if he took a little more interest in the subject, he would understand that what I said was accurate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my hon. Friend highlight to the House the recent statement by Bishop Tutu, who is so often quoted by Opposition Members——

Mr. Winnick: Bishop Tutu has a right to speak, unlike the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winterton: I have a right to speak in the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who professes to support democratic processes, will grant me that right.
Will my hon. Friend highlight the statement by Bishop Tutu, who has urged his people in South Africa to desist from violence, saying that if they continue to burn their fellow citizens in the black townships, he will be forced to leave the country because he cannot be a party to this brutality?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. We welcome those words, as they were welcomed by all responsible commentators in the media this morning. My hon. Friend is the vice-chairman of the all-party British South Africa parliamentary group. It is a great shame that the Labour party has not seen fit to send any representatives to that group——

Mr. Corbyn: Is it all-party?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the all-party Whip states that the meetings are open to all Members of the House. The fact that the Labour party chooses not to attend and not to put any officers up for election is its decision. Not many weeks ago, some black South Africans came as witnesses and they testified to the atrocities that are taking place in the eastern Cape.

Mr. Winnick: Derisory.

Mr. Carlisle: I found that their words were easier to believe than the hon. Gentleman's spurious words. He admits that he has had party political propaganda fed to him from the anti-apartheid party.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose ——

Mr. Carlisle: I should like to give way, but I must get on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) expressed a sentiment expressed by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer not long ago in London, which is that when hope exists, as it now does, for the black majority in South Africa, almost inevitably trouble occurs. We have the experience of America in the 1930s to prove this. There is no doubt that the position of the black in South Africa has changed considerably over the past 10 years. There are now trade unions, which there were not before. The wage gap between the blacks and whites is now much narrower than before. That hope, and the fact that some of the frustrations that existed 10 years ago are being diluted, has given a hostage to fortune for those who are intent on wrecking South African society, and have used for their own evil political means among the black community. That is why we have had the terrible black on black problems within South Africa, and it is part of the whole frustration of the system. The changes that are taking place are being encouraged by the Government.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when people live in extreme poverty, some suffer severe pressure to be paid informers?
Therefore, it is not surprising that in such instability, some of those informers will be murdered? What is different from the situation in the north of Ireland, for instance, where people are killed because they are paid informers? How does one achieve the change that will prevent that? We must not simply say that we must apply more pressure from the top to try to repress the people still further. Someone must turn the light out from underneath, and I have heard nothing that convinces me that the hon. Gentleman is going to do something about that.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has tried to broaden the argument. I shall not follow him into the subject of Northern Ireland.
I reiterate the view of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, who is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a persistent opponent of the South African Government. It is that the hope that now exists among the black South Africans is much greater than it was 10 years ago and the frustrations that were there then have now been alleviated. Such a situation is fertile ground for those intent on wrecking the system. That is why there are now problems in South Africa.
That is why the South African Government were inevitably forced to declare a state of emergency within those sections where the troubles have occurred. Innocent blacks—the majority of black South Africans—were finding that they could not go about their daily business as they wished. It was somewhat regrettable that the EC reacted as it did, but at least this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary half-disassociated himself from the statement by the EC. The constitutional changes in South Africa should be applauded by the House, however inadequate Labour Members might find them.
My second point is about trade. It was heartening to hear this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterate that the Government would not engage in trade sanctions against South Africa. This argument is raging throughout the world, and a little more fuel was added to it this afternoon with the news from France. At least our Government understand that trade sanctions do not work; here I reiterate what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said.

Secondly, they harm those whom they are intended to benefit. I recall the words of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is not in the Chamber at present, when I intervened on a debate on Barclays bank some months ago to ask about the loss of jobs which would occur in South Africa. He said— and I paraphrase—"Some sacrifice has to be made."
I am not willing to sacrifice black jobs in South Africa on the sanctimonious basis of trade sanctions, in the same way that I am not going to sacrifice jobs in this country. I remind Opposition Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is without a tie, that some of them represent constituencies with far higher unemployment than I have in my constituency, and that some 250,000 jobs would be lost in this country if full sanctions were applied to South Africa. Those jobs would be on their heads, and if they believe that would help black South Africans, then I am somewhat saddened by their view.
There is a political bandwagon in the United States and political shenanigans are going on about sanctions, which would lead one to believe that the people involved do not understand the full implications of sanctions upon the blacks in South Africa. If sanctions happen, the implications will be on the heads of Opposition Members and not on the head of this Government, who have stood firm and I trust will continue to stand firm, on trade sanctions.
My last point of the three that I mentioned is the farce of continuing sporting sanctions against South Africa. If my hon. Friend the Minister has a chance to advise the Prime Minister before she goes to the Commonwealth conference in the Bahamas in the autumn, he should tell her that if there is any way in which the innocuous Gleneagles agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Innocuous?"] —can be abandoned, she should take the opportunity to do so. If there is one place in South Africa where apartheid has been broken down and where integration now takes place, it is on the sports field.
It is a tragedy that we in this country, with our sense of fair play and with British sport so highly respected throughout the world, should continue non-co-operation with those in South Africa who are seeking within the laws of that country to bring sport into a fully integrated system. The courage of their sports administrators and of their sportsmen and women who are fully integrated within their own rules and associations and within the rules of society in South Africa, is admirable. The argument that we will help those so-called oppressed majorities in South Africa by staying away, is an argument I cannot accept.
The Gleneagles agreement is now beginning to bite and is doing real harm to the prospects of the blacks in South Africa. I admit that the sanctions in sport applied by the Gleneagles agreement, and sanctions taken by sporting authorities, have pushed the sports authorities in South Africa towards a fully integrated system. I have always admitted that. But there comes a time when the carrot must replace the stick, but now the goalposts have been moved, and for political reasons we are not engaging in sport with South Africa.
The conditions of the Gleneagles agreement about organised sport on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin no longer exist. It is highly immoral of the British Government to continue such a policy when those


conditions no longer prevail in South Africa. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that message to the Prime Minister and to those in authority.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No, I will certainly not give way to that hon. Gentleman.
We should offer South Africa and the black, the coloured, the Indian and the white South African some sort of understanding and encouragement. I regret to say that the weasel words of Opposition Members will strike terror into the hearts of many black South Africans. If we are to make a positive contribution, and if we believe in the dismantling of apartheid and that one day everyone in South Africa should enjoy an equal franchise, we should take encouragement from the changes that have taken place. That is why the argument of Conservative Members is that we should offer encouragement and co-operation.

Mr. Dennis Healey: Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for giving us the opportunity to discuss a matter which clearly arouses strong feelings on both sides of the House and for his excellent speech.
Like the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), I regret that the speeches of Conservative Members have so far represented only a single strain in the attitudes of their party. They regard the Government's policy as being too liberal in many respects and do not reflect the much more far-sighted strain that was represented by, for example, Mr. lain Macleod, the Earl of Stockton and Lord Carrington.
To save Conservative Members the trouble of intervening, I should say that I have visited South Africa and most parts of Africa, north, east and west. When I was in South Africa I met Ministers in the then Government, representatives of all communities, Gatsha Buthelezi and Nelson Mandela in prison on Robben island. I also had what I regard as the great privilege of spending a day with Steve Biko, a young man of exceptional political and human qualities who, a few years later, was beaten to a pulp in a South African gaol, thrown naked like a dog into the back of a truck and driven 200 miles over bumpy roads to a hospital where he died.
If Conservative Members had more feeling for those who have opposed apartheid, their speeches would be different from those that we have heard tonight.
We are witnessing in South Africa an historic tragedy which is in not its final but its penultimate stages. Just over a year ago, the South African Prime Minister left Britain after a visit that was described in The Times as a diplomatic triumph for him, and an unmitigated disaster for the blacks in South Africa.
The British press told us that our Prime Minister had taken Mr. Botha to task, but his Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pik Botha, said:
If that is what she is like when she is taking you to task, then I would like to see her when she is friendly.
That is not the Maggie we know. My impression from talking to Conservative Members is that when the right hon. Lady disapproves of someone she makes her views crystal clear. But there is no doubt that Mr. Botha left

these shores with a different impression from that which the Prime Minister tried to convey to the House about his visit.
The right hon. Lady told us that we should expect significant improvements in South African behaviour following the visit, if not as a result of it. Let us look at how Prime Minister Botha rewarded her. Almost his first act was a slap in the face. He broke a solemn commitment to send four South African agents to stand trial for breaking the law in Britain, even though his embassy in London had put up bail of £400,000. The only reaction of the British Government was some verbal whingeing from a junior Minister at the Foreign Office.
Meanwhile, in Mr. Botha's own part of the world, he sent his troops to invade a friendly Commonwealth country and to carry out a massacre in Gabarone, he sent troops to invade Angola after saying that he was withdrawing all his troops from that country, he sent special forces to blow up an American installation in northern Angola and he sabotaged the United Nations resolution on Namibia by setting up a puppet Government there in straight violation of the policy that he had promised to pursue.
Inside South Africa's own borders, what have we seen in the last 12 months? Mr. Botha has presided over the killing of 500 blacks, often shot in the back or beaten up by police in balaclava helmets. All hon. Members deplore some of the atrocities which have been referred to, but the fact is that this whole terrible cycle started with the massacre at Uitenhage, in which a young officer was allowed to fire at people who were offering no provocation whatever, as was later demonstrated in an inquiry. We have also seen the death squads murdering the political opponents of the regime, and finally we have seen the declaration of emergency which has established a storm-trooper state in which the agents of the Government are licensed to kill without fear of legal retribution.
These are very serious developments, and it is not surprising that they have produced reactions in South Africa and in the rest of the world. Indeed, the wind of change, to which an earlier Conservative Prime Minister referred in a famous speech in South Africa, has now become a hurricane.
One of the most disturbing things I have read recently is the findings of the survey by an institute sponsored by the South African Government themselves. It reported that a majority of the South African people now react positively to using violence as a means of political change. That majority includes 63 per cent., nearly two thirds, of the blacks in South Africa and, surprisingly, I expect, to all hon. Members, 30 per cent. of the whites and somewhere between 30 and 50 per cent. of the Asians and coloureds.
These are facts which we cannot shut out of our minds. Much as I appreciated, if I may say so, the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who made a classical case for a Conservative approach to the problem with moderation and some insight, the plain fact is that the situation which I have just described is one to which this type of Conservativism has become totally irrelevant.
As has been pointed out, we in this House have a long historic connection with South Africa, and we have a moral responsibility, though no political responsibility, for the welfare of the people there; and the real question we must face is this. Is there anything which we can do which


may slow down or divert this accelerating race to catastrophe in South Africa, or must we, as the Foreign Secretary implied in his speech last night, rely wholly on Mr. Botha's good will? I do not think, in the light of what has happened in the last 12 months, that anybody can honestly expect the situation to improve without external intervention in some form.
I want to suggest, without total confidence that this will be effective, some measures which I believe must be tried, and which the Security Council, in a resolution which the British Government did not oppose, has already asked all countries to consider immediately. Indeed, as I understand it, the British Governent had a hand in drafting the resolution, although at the last moment they would not vote for it.
The Security Council asked all countries to consider immediate voluntary measures to try to shift the policy of the South African Government. In my opinion, what we in Britain should immediately do would include the following five steps. The first would be to withdraw our ambassador from South Africa. That does not mean withdrawing the embassy or ceasing all contact with the South Africn Government. Withdrawing our ambassador is a sign of displeasure, as President Reagan has already done, and as France announced today that it is doing.
Secondly, we should ban all new loans and investment, as France has now decided to do and as the American Congress—both Houses —has decided should be done by the United States. I believe that President Reagan will find it impossible to avoid doing so in the coming weeks.
Thirdly, we should make compulsory the Community code of conduct for European—including British—firms in South Africa. A voluntary code of conduct will not be effective. We have seen that already in the behaviour of the British BTR company, which has been found guilty by the International Confederaton of Free Trade Unions and the TUC of paying starvation wages to its employees in South Africa.
Fourthly, we must tighten the arms embargo to shut off the scope for the supply of licences for spare parts and components for a whole range of aircraft that could be used for military purposes—a loophole that has been opened by the new Export of Goods (Control) Order that comes into force tomorrow.
Finally, the Government must begin to establish informal contact with the African National Congress, as they have already done with the PLO. The case is similar. It is inconsistent of the Government to ask the South African Government to release Nelson Mandela, who has refused to forswear the use of force, and at the same time to use the ANC's commitment to force when necessary as an argument for having no contact with it.
Against that background of unilateral measures —many of which I freely admit will be symbolic rather than practical—we must begin seriously discussing what sort of United Nations mandatory sanctions it would be sensible to introduce if and when that proves to be necessary.

Mr. John Carlisle: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have always insisted that they have contact with the UDF, who have close contact with the ANC, much to the dismay of some of my hon. Friends. Does he agree that if such contact were to be continued, it would be better with the UDF rather than with the ANC, which has declared publicly within the past 48 hours on

British radio that it intends by violent means to attack what it calls soft targets and is committed to revolutionary change in South Africa? Will he not give the Government some credit for at least having a line to the UDF, if riot to the ANC?

Mr. Healey: Of course I give the Government some credit. They are steadily forced back by events and public opinion in what I regard as the right direction. I am glad that they are establishing contact with the UDF. However, they should also establish contact wth the ANC. The Minister is well aware of the distinction in Israel between PLO representatives and people close to the PLO who are not members of it and with whom we have always maintained contact, such as the mayors of some of the villages on the west bank.
I do not think that contact with the UDF is an adequate substitute for contact with the key people in the ANC. I do not ask the Prime Minister to invite Oliver Tambo to Chequers next week—perhaps next year—but contact at an official level with these people would be desirable. We had such contact in the final stages of many colonial episodes, as Conservative Members will know, such as Rhodesia, Kenya, Cyprus and many other parts of the world.
The Foreign Secretary addressed himself to these problems in a notable speech last night and he repeated some of the points he then made in answering questions in the House this afternoon. His basic argument—it has been made by some Conservative Members in this debate —is that all economic sanctions are counter-productive and are bound to fail in their purpose.
To the amazement of many of us, the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the failure of sanctions against Rhodesia. Of course they failed. Because the South African Government acted as a free conduit for supplies from all over the world to Rhodesia, sanctions in that case never had a chance.
The Government are selective in their approach to sanctions. They imposed sanctions against Poland to influence the internal situation there. To do so in the case of South Africa, it is said, would be contary to international law. The Government are at this momemt applying sanctions against Nicaragua by instructing their officials in Washington and elsewhere to block economic assistance to Nicaragua from international institutions such as the IMF and the various ancillaries of the International Bank by confecting false reasons for refusing assistance. The House knows that because of the honesty of a junior official in the Overseas Development Administration who has since been sacked for his honesty.
Let us not forget that we imposed sanctions against Iran following the taking of American hostages. Those sanctions were certainly effective because the freeze on Iranian financial assets was a key issue in the release of the hostages. The final negotiations about the unfreezing of those assets clinched the deal and led to their release. The Government's arguments against sanctions against South Africa are contradicted by their own behaviour now and in recent years.
If we do not start by taking at least the minimal measures that I have listed, we shall not only be failing in our political and human duty, but we shall be isolating ourselves from our friends all over the world.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My right hon. Friend said that sanctions against Rhodesia had failed. Although I agree


that sanctions by themselves did not bring an end to UDI, does he accept that if there had been full diplomatic recognition of Rhodesia, with totally free access of arms, finance and so on, the war would have been prolonged significantly?

Mr. Healey: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I come to the problem of Britain's isolation on this issue. The Prime Minister will meet her fellow Commonwealth Prime Ministers at a conference in the Bahamas in October. Every other Commonwealth country supports economic sanctions against South Africa. The white Commonwealth countries—Australia, Canada and New Zealand — have already announced types of sanctions, including many of the measures that I have suggested. The Third-world members of the Commonwealth pressed for that at a meeting in London, at which the British Government were the only dissenter from a communiqué published only last week. There is growing support for sanctions in Europe. The Scandinavian countries already impose them; France announced today that it is imposing them; and there is not the slightest doubt that other European countries, particularly the Netherlands, and probably Germany, will follow.
In the United States, too, sanctions are already being applied, although not yet by the Government. Most of the big banks have already decided to stop new loans to South Africa and are trying to disengage from their activities there, as are a couple of British banks; Standard Chartered bank has already got rid of its majority holding in its subsidiary in South Africa. A growing number of businesses in the United States and large multinationals are trying to disengage from South Africa, as are many public authorities, including New York. Both Houses of Congress have recently voted resolutions urging the imposition of economic sanctions. A conference will be held between them in the next few weeks to try to compose their differences. It would be remarkable if President Reagan chose to veto their agreed resolution.
The Government do not have a leg to stand on with their present policy. I respect the hopes that the Government entertained — although I never agreed with them — of constructive engagement with South Africa. However, the South African Government have already made a mockery of those hopes. The policy of constructive engagement lies in shambles. The Government have a clear duty to play an active role in shaping events in southern Africa, so far as that is possible for outsiders, as that is the only hope of avoiding a catastrophe which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to avoid.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall endeavour to be brief. I do not have a prepared speech and I hope to speak from my experience of visiting South Africa and Namibia on a number of occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who paid?"] My entry in the Register of Members' Interests will provide Labour Members with all the information that they require.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Winterton: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to be extremely negative. I shall comment on the constructive and useful speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). His contribution was thoughtful and positive and I believe that it will be heeded by the media and the press in the Republic of South Africa and elsewhere. I am interested that he and the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), have advanced the proposition that the present chaos, riots and disorder in South Africa, which have necessitated emergency powers, might be defused if the South African Government released Nelson Mandela unconditionally. I hold reservations about that and I am not sure what dangerous precedent it might set.
However, if the South African Government believed that Nelson Mandela's release could be a useful initiative, I should not discourage them from taking it. There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela holds an important place in the eyes of many of the South African blacks. If he were released from prison, he might feature as one of the major black leaders with whom the South African Government could enter into negotiations and discussions to seek a way for the black majority people of South Africa to have a meaningful input into the Government of that country.
My message in this important debate—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for initiating it — is that the Government of South Africa should consider seriously the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela. It is a possible initiative which could be acceptable to the black people and enable them, as it were, to enter into meaningful discussions.
I am sad that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East with his considerable experience of many areas of the world, including South Africa and Africa as a continent did not mention the plea of Bishop Tutu, the Anglican bishop of Johannesburg. He has spoken to his people in a loud and clear voice. He has said, "Please stop the violence. Please stop the killing. This no way to make progress in our country." I have been an outspoken critic of the bishop, but having sought to read everything that he has said, it seems that he has said to the Government of South Africa, "I am not at this time in support of disinvestment in my country. I believe that our Government deserve a breathing space of about two years to follow through even faster the reforms that they are introducing. If no meaningful progress has been made at the end of that period, I may support sanctions and boycotts which will bring great suffering to the majority of the black people."

Mr. Healey: I made it clear that I opposed the sort of atrocities that were recently carried out in South Africa. Of course, I endorse the appeal by Bishop Tutu. I think that thousands of people would be more interested if Conservative Members were less selective in quoting Bishop Tutu's words. They have not quoted his appeal to the South African Government to end the state of emergency, his blistering attack on apartheid and his appeal to the Government to end the pass laws and the most serious elements of apartheid and to give the blacks the political freedoms to which human beings all over the


world are entitled. When the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is prepared to endorse all that Bishop Tutu says, I will be more impressed by his choise of quotations.

Mr. Winterton: I do not think that Bishop Tutu would expect me to agree with everything that he says; likewise, I am sure that he would not agree with everything that I say. Bishop Tutu has made a plea for an end to the killing. I hope that his people in the black townships of the eastern Cape and eastern Rand heed him and that the restoration of peace will lead to the rapid return to the reforms that Mr. P. W. Botha, the President, was introducing.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way now, but I shall be happy to give way in a moment when I have developed my arguments.
It is sad that the House, the United States and the European Community Foreign Ministers seek to impose a European system of democracy on an African country. I want the system of apartheid to end. I say that unreservedly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I must say as well—hon. Members will not like me for this—that I do not believe that, in my lifetime or, indeed, in the history of the Republic of South Africa, there will be a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state. I do not believe that it will work. Africa's history shows that it will not.
We need look just north of South Africa to see Zimbabwe rapidly moving towards a one-party state. It is based on a tribal system. Mr. Mugabe and the majority Mashona people are determined that their way will be that country's way. The 20 per cent. who are represented by the Ndebele people will not have any meaningful say in the Government.
That is the history of government in north, east, west, central and southern Africa. I want an end to the abhorrent system of separate development, but I do not believe that the system that will replace it will be a one man, one vote system in a unitary state. I believe that South Africa will move towards a democracy under a constellation of states with common purposes in foreign affairs, defence and economics. Within meaningful state areas however, there will be a one man, one vote system.
I regret the fact that the recommendations of the Buthelezi commission have not been taken on board by the Government of the Republic. When I was there earlier this year I think that many of the white South Africans in Durban felt that Durban would form a major part of a Zulu state in South Africa under the dynamic and inspired leadership of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. He is one of the many leaders of the black people of South Africa who have been to many countries speaking on behalf of their people.
Chief Gatsha Buthelezi speaks on behalf of the largest black group in South Africa. He is perhaps the most important political figure there. I speak of him in his capacity as president of Inkata which is a political movement that crosses the ethnic groups of Zulu, Xhosa, Venda, Sotho and Tswana. He is the president of the largest black political group in South Africa, and is strongly opposed to disinvestment in his country. Should we not listen to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi? Surely he has a part to play as he is expressing a view representative of many people in South Africa.
If one does not accept what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi says, what about the most fervent Liberals there, some of whom have already been mentioned? Mr. Harry Oppenheimer for example, has for decades opposed the Afrikaans Boer Administration in Pretoria and Cape Town, and given tremendous support to the move to end apartheid and separate development. Alan Paton and Mrs. Helen Suzman have also been mentioned. Those people, who are widely respected throughout the world, have stated that in their experience of their country and Africa, disinvestment will not be of benefit to South Africa or bring about the changes that we all wish to see.
Do not the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and others who are critical of the stance of some of my colleagues and me, accept that, despite the fact that the Portuguese have left Angola, there is no democracy there? When was an election held in Angola? Yet is Angola recognised by the United Nations? Of course it is. When was an election held in Mozambique? None has ever been held there. Where is the democratic system about which the right hon. Gentleman boasts, and which he seeks to force on South Africa? The right hon. Gentleman should look at Africa through the eyes of Africans, not Europeans. The only reason why Dos Santos and the MPLA are in control of Angola is that they happened to be in Luanda on a particular date in November some years ago. If Jonas Savimbi had been there that day, he would probably be in power in Angola.
I ask the House to look at the true position realistically, not from a view tainted by international politics, which in the end does not solve the problems facing the world. I referred to Zimbabwe, and to South Africa as an African country. Please let us deal with that country from an African standpoint, not a European one.
The United Kingdom Government are taking an extremely constructive stance over South Africa. We may be one of only a few countries who are standing out against the trendy popular view at present, but that does not make us wrong. Nor did it make Winston Churchill wrong when, in the House, he stood out against disarmament, which was a popular policy at the time with both the Labour party and some Conservative Members. He was almost a lone voice in the wilderness, but none the less he stood by his belief. With hindsight was he not proved right?

Mr. Rogers: Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to equate his position on South Africa with that of Winston Churchill on Nazi Germany? When he asks my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to listen to the views of Bishop Tutu and to speak to him about development of South Africa, is he prepared to ask the same of the South African Government, who have paid for his many trips to South Africa?

Mr. Winterton: That is cheap.

Mr. Rogers: It is not cheap. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would come clean with the House——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and he must resume his seat.

Mr. Winterton: Because of the hon. Gentleman's provocative intervention, I am tempted to be immodest and to say that I leave history to judge that. But, as I said


at the beginning of my speech, my involvement in, and the visits that I have paid to, Namibia and South Africa are properly registered in the Register of Members' Interests in accordance with the resolution of this House. I do not need to go into any further detail this evening.
I ask Opposition Members to consider and comment upon the reforms that have taken place in South Africa under the initiatives taken by the state President —previously the Prime Minister of the Republic—and his Government.
There are now coloured trade unions, mixed trade unions and black trade unions. They are recognised and are part of the industrial scene of the Republic of South Africa. I wonder whether in all the countries of Eastern Europe there is the freedom of labour that there now in the Republic of South Africa.
We should also appreciate the housing reforms that have taken place. Freehold rights will shortly be granted to blacks living in such major cities as Alexandria, Soweto and elsewhere. That is a major change. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal party would agree that inevitably that must ultimately lead to the complete destruction of the whole system of apartheid.

Mr. David Steel: The point is—and I discussed this with Mrs. Suzman during her visit last week—that the advances that the hon. Gentleman accurately describes are confined to certain restricted areas. That is not true of other countries.

Mr. Winterton: I think the right hon. Gentleman means other parts of South Africa. But I believe that the reforms that are now taking place will inevitably lead to free movement within South Africa, just as I believe that the industrial needs and economic growth of that country are also contributing to a very marked extent to the breaking up of the system of separate development. Industry in that country needs skilled labour, and that cannot be provided by white South Africans. It is therefore inevitable that the other population groups will play an increasing part in the industrial and commercial life of that country.
There are many other areas where reforms have taken place. Forced removals have been suspended. In fact, they were suspended about the time that I visited South Africa earlier this year. That should be welcomed in this country.
The improved powers granted to black local government should also be welcomed. The additional money now being spent on the education of blacks in South Africa should be welcomed. The increased training of blacks, coloureds and Asians within South African industry clearly indicates that the system of apartheid will shortly end, and I am delighted at that.
Powers have been assumed by the South African Government because of the riots and disorder that have taken place in 36 of the 300 magisterial areas. The sooner those powers are ended, the better. But they cannot be ended until order has been restored. These powers are as much for the benefit of the law-abiding black, coloured and Indian citizens of the Republic of South Africa as they are in the interests of the Government. The Government have a duty to try to ensure law and order so that all people in that country can go about their work and other activities in the way that they would wish.
I also point out that South Africa is of considerable importance to the Western world. It is the only country on the African continent with deep-sea port facilities for Western shipping. All the other ports are used by the growing Soviet navy which operates in the Atlantic and the Pacific.
We should also not forget that, irrespective of the views of a minority in the Union of South Africa, as it then was, that country was a great supporter of the United Kingdom and the free world in the Second World War.
Before I finish, I wish to correct something that was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East relating to the inauguration of the transitional Government of National Liberty in Namibia. I find it extraordinary that this initiative mounted by the internal political parties of every political persuasion in Namibia should be condemned by the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Shipanga of the SWAPO Democrats, is a leading Minister in this new transitional Government, which in no way impedes the implementation in due course of United Nations Security Council resolution 435. The politicians who are party to the internal Government of Namibia have made clear that they do not want total power because they do not wish in any way to go against resolution 435. They want that resolution implemented in due course and internationally supervised elections.
Is the right hon. Gentleman fair when he condemns this grouping of independent internal parties under such people as Andreas Shipanga? He was a founder member of SWAPO with Sam Nujoma. His only crime was that he suggested to Mr. Nujoma the Mr. Nujoma might care to stand for election as Leader of SWAPO, as a result of which he was imprisoned, and only after two and a half years did he win his release. He was then returned to his country to set up, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the SWAPO Democrats and participate in the internal affairs of that country. Mr. Moses Katjiuongua, the president of the South-West African National Union, a party which existed before SWAPO was even formed, has himself been in prison and has opposed South Africa from the year dot. These men are part of the new Government, which I hope will be an interim internal Government of national unity seeking to bring a country — which is four times in geographical terms the size of the United Kingdom and which has a population of 1 million people—towards evolutionary independence ultimately, with internationally supervised elections. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is something that he really can deplore.

Mr. Healey: I think this is one issue on which I happen to agree with the present British Government and the American Administration, both of whom have condemned the setting up of this puppet Government.

Mr. Winterton: I am not sure the word "condemned" has come from the mouth of the British Minister. I believe that the British Government have said that in their view the Government in question are null and void. [Interruption.] Well, politicians use language that is often considered one way by one group and another way by others. I do not consider that that is a robust condemnation by the British Government. Certainly it does not amount to recognition, but I do not believe that it is a condemnation, either. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I believe that the example set in Namibia, if it is successful, could when order has been restored in the


Republic of South Africa, be an example to follow, and set a faster rate of progress in South Africa. I say publicly that I wish every success to the new transitional Government of national unity that is operating from Windhoek in Namibia. I hope that what goes on in that country will be an example to the rest of the African continent.
South Africa is a country important to the prosperity and stability of the whole of southern Africa. The African continent is vital to the free world. Let us try to encourage South Africa to make the necessary progress so that the abhorent system of separate development—apartheid—can be brought to an end as soon as possible. But let us not bring about a system whereby all the peoples of southern Africa are plunged into chaos, and the country into disorder. If we do, we shall be criticised in the years that lie ahead. We have a heavy responsibility at this time.

1 am

Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will not think that I am treating him too harshly when I say that when he appeared to be comparing himself with Winston Churchill, he reminded me more of the period when Winston Churchill was opposing the inevitable in India than when he was dealing with Nazi Germany. The inevitable cannot be avoided in South Africa. If Harold Macmillan did not succeed almost a quarter of a century ago in persuading Conservative Members that the wind of change was making an impression, the events of the past few weeks in particular make it clear that South Africa is heading in a different direction from the one that appears to appeal to Conservative Members.
I was particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) intervened to say that the quotations from Bishop Tutu were selective. That was especially right in view of the fact that his enthronment address when he was installed as the Bishop of Johannesburg was word by word and line by line, an utter condemnation of almost every expression of opinion that we have heard from Conservative Members in the debate.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was successful in obtaining the debate. As usual he made an excellent speech. It was lucid and appealed to the House. When Conservative Members were asking him whether he had been to South Africa, I thought that my hon. Friend showed particular tolerance. I look forward to the time when he speaks in his normal role as Front Bench spokesman on housing matters, and when he in turn asks Conservative Members when they last saw a council house or visited a council estate.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend spoke with great authority. I was particularly pleased when he referred to the article in The Times about Nelson Mandela. It told us a great deal about Mandela and South Africa, the man and his aspirations, and his love for South Africa, when he talked about the beauty of the city of Johannesburg and even about the role of the whites in the future of South Africa. That is a man who loves his country and who should not be in prison. He should be given the opportunity to express his ideas, which are much more representative of the future than those reflected in the British Government's policies.
In the article there was a most moving message from Mandela in prison, when he said to his fellow citizens:
Your freedom and mine cannot be separated.
That is true of South Africa in the context of the rest of the world.
We cannot be complacent about human rights, human dignity and progress for mankind if we have the blot of South Africa on the international landscape. In spite of the examples of America, France and the EC which have been given today, we have had a tepid response from the Government. That is especially astonishing in view of South Africa's record in respect of Commonwealth countries. What about Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana? Did the British Government offer solidarity with those countries when faced with provocation from South Africa? No. We urged them to sign treaties to comply with South African demands. The invasion of Botswana is outrageous and has not been condemned sufficiently by the Prime Minister or any other Ministers.
We have been asked to judge the record of the South African regime this evening. The hon. Member for Macclesfield asked us especially eloquently to do so. I should like to refer to a compelling letter that appeared in the Glasgow Herald of 9 July, signed by the high commissioner for Botswana. Of South Africa he said:
Their recent activities in the region and their pressures on Botswana indicate that they now want from Botswana more than a commitment to our well-known policy of good neighbourliness. They now want Botswana, through the use of their overwhelming military force, if necessary, to commit itself, by treaty, to be co-opted in the enforcement of apartheid in South Africa and the perpetuation of colonialism in Namibia.
The letter described the invasion thus:
The so-called 'ANC operators' killed in the raid were: a 60-year-old man who had emigrated from South Africa in the early 1950s and was a temporary resident; a 71-year-old South African man who came to Botswana in 1981 to spend the remaining days of his life in peace and freedom in exile; a 47-year-old refugee businessman and his social worker wife who worked for our Ministry of Local Government and Lands; a refugee student at the University of Botswana who had tied the country to avoid the military draft; a musician; and a secondary school teacher who had just graduated from university in Nigeria and a South African student visiting relatives in Botswana. The rest were a six-year-old child from Lesotho, two Botswana housekeepers and a Dutch citizen of Somali origin working for a computer company, all of whom may never have heard about the ANC.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is in order for Conservative Members to use the Government's facilities to obtain statistics and information from the civil servants? My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised this matter recently with Mr. Speaker. If there is to be a connection between the British Government and the Government of South Africa through that Box, it is a travesty of democracy——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter was indeed raised. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling and I ask the hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory of it. The civil servants in the Box are there to advise Ministers.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate will end at 1.48. The Minister who is to reply to the debate would like to begin his speech at 1.30. These interruptions mean that hon. Members who have been sitting throughout the debate will not be called.

Mr. Clarke: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that time is not on my side.
The state of emergency in South Africa means that violence and injustice prevail. More and more power has been given to the police and army chiefs. To those hon. Members who argue that this was inevitable I put this question: why has Mr. Botha gone out of his way to brief the press and ask them to take the view that the state of emergency was forced upon him by the police and the military? Powers which are absolutely disgraceful and indefensible have been taken: the power of arrest and detention, the power to supervise free journalists, and the power to police
including the right to use force resulting in death.
People do not even have the right to disclose the name of a detainee without official permission. If they do, they have to accept that it is a crime.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was right to remind the House that Britain is in grave danger of becoming isolated. We have ignored the United Nations, the Commonwealth and those countries whose commitment to democracy is at least as great as ours. They have taken action to bring to South Africa's attention the repugnance that is felt by all.
Notwithstanding the atrocious record of the South African Government and the determination of all civilised people to put an end to apartheid, there are hon. Members who offer apologies and excuses and who make speeches in an effort to defend the indefensible. But it will be impossible to defeat the progress of the human spirit. Injustice in South Africa will be defeated. Ultimately justice will prevail.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made a speech, as did other Opposition Members, which, if one were a stranger from another planet listening to this debate from the Strangers Gallery, would lead him to believe that the whole world is like this country and that all the debates that take place throughout the world are like ours. Anybody who knows anything about the world realises that in many respects this country is unique. The way in which we can debate issues in this Chamber is unique.
Equally, this stranger would look at the world and realise that South Africa, like many other parts of the world, faces tribal problems. The difference between South Africa and many other parts of the world is that one can tell the difference between the tribes by the colour of their skins. But is that not true of other parts of the world? It is true of the Indian subcontinent, of the south American continent and of large parts of south-east Asia. One can tell the difference because of their different appearance and because of the religions that they practise. We have to ask ourselves whether we are pretending to ourselves or whether we are prepared to look at the world as it really is. Only a tiny minority of the world's population enjoys democracy. More than four fifths of the member states of the United Nations are not democracies.
If we are to make any attempt to understand the problems of southern Africa—problems which, like so many others, began as accidents of history—we must show tolerance and accept that regimes exist which are unpalatable by our standards and values. Regardless of our political positions, all hon. Members support democracy, freedom and free speech.
We know that the world at large is not like that. most of us abhor the administration in southern Africa. Few of us would compliment it or wish to have any association with it. I am sorry that the right hon. Member from the borders is not here. Since I am advised that he would not recognise me, I shall refrain from remembering his constituency. It was interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber during our debate for only a few minutes. Since he has recently spent some time in that part of the world, one would have hoped that he would have spent more time in this Chamber of democracy and made a positive attempt to do something about the matter, but he did not. [Interruption.] He has such a poor memory that he has probably forgotten what he saw there. He cannot even remember hon. Members who come to the Chamber every day.
If Opposition Members genuinely believe, as they claim, that it is right for the Scottish tribe to have its own homeland and its elected assembly in Edinburgh, why is it wrong for the Benda tribe to have its homeland? I make no apology for being a member of the Scottish tribe. I do not understand these double standards. Apparently for good political reasons north of the border, it is right to have a Scottish tribal conclave and a Scottish Assembly. However, they do not believe that it is right for the Benda nation.
Hon. Members delude themselves and the rest of the world if they believe that the House can provide a solution to the problems of southern Africa, because they are complicated and difficult problems that were created by accidents of history. However, we cannot escape the fact tht Britain is a manufacturing nation. We must purchase vital minerals for the manufacture of essential goods. Whether we like it or not, 98 per cent. of those essential minerals are in southern Africa or south-west Africa or under the control of the USSR. Those minerals are necessary for the manufacture of high-grade steel and alloys. If, as Opposition Members suggest, we did not buy those minerals, the effect on Britain would be far greater than the effects of the problems with OPEC.
The OPEC problems would shrink into insignificance in comparison. One cannot manufacture all the modern appliances that we manufacture and sell abroad without these essential minerals, and we could not have the avionics, aviation and shipping industries or most of the equipment used by our armed forces if these essential minerals were not available to us.
Instability in southern Africa cannot be in the best interests of the manufacturing nations of the West. The problems in South Africa now should remind us that it is one of the few countries in Africa that has not had a coup in the past 50 years. Nearly every other country has had a change of administration that did not take place under the normal process that one would expect.
That being so, we have to ask ourselves whether the speeches that we make inflame a difficult situation or help it. If it is the former, one should be careful about the speeches that one makes. We feel that way about the speeches that some politicians from other countries make about Northern Ireland, which we know inflame the situation there unnecessarily. Is it not also possible that if we take the licence that our freedom allows us —[Interruption.] I am not telling individuals that they should not make such speeches. I am saying that they should think


carefully before doing so. There is a difference between saying that one should not do something, and saying that one should think carefully before doing so.
With democracy come certain conditions that should be recognised. One is that one is required to apply oneself sensibly in a way that will not unnecessarily damage others. [Interruption.] I do not find that funny.
I make no apology for the situation in southern Africa, because history shows that these things evolve slowly. The white tribe is in control. It has control that allows freedoms, and greater freedoms than I found in other parts of Africa. I am not talking about military control. We should think carefully before we do things that inflame the difficult situation, and we should apply tolerance.

Mr. Richard Caborn: I have only seven minutes tonight; at least I had 10 when I moved my South Africa (Sanctions) Bill a couple of weeks ago. Some of the things that have been said tonight are appalling. They have not taken account of what has been happening in southern Africa. I have not been to South Africa, and I shall tonight be quoting not only from people who have been there but from people who live there and are representatives of the people there.
The way that Bishop Tutu's words have been taken out of context is appalling. I shall quote what he said in St. Paul's cathedral, when he gave a lecture. He said:
Ensure that your country exerts political, diplomatic, but, above all, economic pressure on the South African Government to persuade it to go to the conference table at a National Convention with the authentic leaders of all sections of our community, and for us blacks, it would mean the real leaders now in jail or in exile.
That speech has been published.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said that I had a three-line Whip for the Bill, which I had the pleasure to introduce in the House a couple of weeks ago. The contrary is the position. I was heartened to speak to many Conservatives, some of whom wrote to the antiapartheid movement saying they would be supporting the Bill, and quite a number said that they would not be prepared to go through the Lobby with certain elements on the Conservative side who were opposed to that.
Those elements have formed the voice of the Conservative party in this debate, and one could say it is a hard, Right-wing voice. It is a pity that a distortion of the Conservative party has come through in the debate. A number of people in the United Kingdom in all political parties would agree on the rejection of apartheid. The Government have adopted a platitudinous attitude and are taking no positive action. At Question Time today, the Foreign Secretary clearly underlined the position of the Government on the matter of constructive engagement.
The matter of Nelson Mandela and the ANC has been raised forcefully in the debate. For many years, Nelson Mandela and the ANC took exactly the course of trying to start a dialogue with the South African authorities. The abrupt end came in the 1960 massacre in Sharpeville. That was then the ANC and Nelson Mandela, together with his colleagues, said, "Enough is enough. We cannot tolerate the situation any longer." The ANC tried desperately for years to engage in a dialogue with the authorities, and it was the massacre of 69 people which drove Mandela and the ANC to take the decisions they did.
Some 25 years ago, a state of emergency was imposed in South Africa after the actions of the security forces in

Sharpeville. The ANC was banned in 1961. Comments on constructive engagement have been made in the last 12 months by the Financial Times They were made just after President Botha embarked on a tour of European capitals. In April, the Financial Times said:
Barely one year ago President P. W. Botha embarked on a tour of European capitals to explain changes in South Africa's domestic policies, against a background of apparent accommodation with the black states in the region.
Mr. Botha would not be welcome in European capitals today. Such credibility as he may have enjoyed has been undermined by a series of events, including last weekend's incursion by South African troops into southern Angola. At the same time, the credibility of the western powers, which have often been prepared to give Mr. Botha the benefit of the doubt, has been eroded too. Washington's policy of constructive engagement with South Africa, adopted by Mrs. Thatcher, is looking increasingly threadbare. In the United States the growing strength of the disinvestment and sanctions lobby is pushing President Reagan closer to selective action.
In conclusion, it said:
Washington's patience has already been strained by events in Angola, where again diplomacy has taken second place to military ambitions.
Throughout this period there is scant evidence that the west's cautious diplomacy has had a deterrent or constructive effect.
I want to go briefly through the last 12 months of involvement or lack of it on the part of the British authorities and actions that have been taken in South Africa. As I said in my speech two weeks ago, the role of the British authorities in South Africa is greater than that of any other western nation. In August 1984 there occurred the detention without trial of United Democratic Front leaders prior to the coloured and Indian elections. In September 1984, the British Government refused to condemn the new constitution and was represented at the inaugural ceremony of the new state president. Also in September 1984, six leaders of the UDF sought sanctuary from detention orders in the British consulate in Durban, and British Ministers refused to meet with their representatives. In October 1984, the South African cabinet decided that four senior members who were convicted should not be returned to Britain to stand trial on arms smuggling charges in Coventry. Also in October 1984, all visits to those still in the Durban consulate were banned by the British authorities. In December 1984 the sit-in ended and those arrested were charged with high treason. They were the main UDF leaders.
In February this year, there were further arrests of UDF leaders. In March, there was the massacre in Langa on the 25th anniversary of the Sharpeville killings. In April, the South African president announced that a transitional Government would be established in Namibia in defiance of United Nations resolution 485. In May, there were South African commando raids on Gulf Oil installations in Cabinda. So it goes on.
Unfortunately, time is short, but I wish to quote two important statements. We have been told about developments in the trade union movement in South Africa. A Statement issued by the South African Congress of Trade Unions said:
The Botha-Malan Regime has imposed a naked military dictatorship on our people. The South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) together with other democratic and fighting forces of our country, views this as a desperate but futile attempt to crush the democratic movement.
In the light of this situation, SACTU calls on the international Trade Union Movement to take immediate action to cut off Apartheid South Africa by:
1. Refusing to handle all maritime, air or land traffic to or from South Africa


2. Refusing to handle any goods to and from South Africa
3. Refusing to handle all telecommunications to or from South Africa
4. Refusing to handle all postal and telegraphic traffic to or from South Africa, and
5. Mounting massive demonstrations at all diplomatic missions representing the white minority regime abroad.
The South African Congress of Trade Unions call upon all Trade Unionists to urge the governments of their respective countries to impose immediate comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria Regime.
We have quoted Bishop Tutu and others, and on 28 April a conference of the South African Council of Churches passed a resolution calling for disinvestment. It was drawn up not by visitors to South Africa, but by people who are there all the time. They have to live with apartheid; they do not flit off to South Africa for three or four weeks. They echo Bishop Tutu's call. The statement says:
This conference therefore resolves:

(a) to express our belief that disinvestment and similar economic pressures are now called for as a peaceful and effective means of putting pressure on the South African government to bring about those fundamental changes this country needs.
(b) to ask our partner churches in other countries to continue with their efforts to identify and promote effective economic pressures to influence the situation in South Africa, towards achieving justice and peace in this country and minimizing the violence of the conflict;
(c) to promote fuller consideration of the issues by placing the case for the imposition of economic sanctions and disinvestment before the Executive Committee of the SACC and the Regional Councils, and the Councils of our member churches and organisations with the request that they encourage congregations to study and debate them;
(d) to ask the Executive to appoint in consultation with the Director of Justice and Reconciliation a task force to examine the whole question of economic justice as well as issues of disinvestment and economic sanctions, to review and co-ordinate the responses from the churches, and to assist the church leaders by making available to them information and analyses;
(e) to call member churches and individual christians to withdraw from participation in the economic system that oppresses the poor, by re-investing money and energy in alternative economic systems in existence in our region."
Conservative Members referred to the trade union movement, but when the movement gives its considered opinions on the crisis in South Africa, Tory Members reject those opinions. They want to have their cake and eat it. I hope that the Minister will be a little more conciliatory than some of his hon. Friends have been.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): It is the end of July, the middle of the night and the middle of the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. In normal circumstances, many of us would be dropping off to sleep. However, not once in the last three hours have I felt like dropping off to sleep and, when I have looked round the Chamber, to my amazement, every hon. Member has been awake.
It has been a stimulating debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on raising an issue which is of profound importance not only to the people of South Africa and southern Africa, but to this country as well. It is, of course, an issue which raises

great passions and feelings in the House, and they were expressed sincerely and strongly this evening. I believe that it has been a valuable and lively debate.
Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I have travelled around the African continent a great deal and, indeed, many times to South Africa. My first job was in east Africa. I think that it is a wonderful continent, a colourful continent and a continent of great extremes—the extremes of harshness, but the extremes also of kindness and good humour. When I look back on my experience of being the Minister of State responsible for African affairs for three years, which was a great privilege, I remember in particular the Lancaster house conference on Rhodesia. I sometimes think, when I look back on that occasion, that the only basis on which we got through was the good humour of the British and of the Africans. It is a simple humour that permeates the African continent.
Apartheid casts a long shadow over Britain's relations with South Africa. Let there be no doubt about our detestation of apartheid, and all the repressive measures used to enforce it. It is contrary to all civilised values. The existence side by side of two communities—a ruling minority and a majority excluded from participation in the Government—is made doubly repugnant by the fact that the glaring inequalities between the two are founded on institutionalised racial discrimination. Such a system is basically unstable and dangerous. It makes economic nonsense. Apartheid is wasteful of resources. By putting barriers in the way of movement and opportunity, it inhibits economic growth. The South African Government know, because we have repeatedly made the point, and shall continue to do so, that the policy of apartheid is an affront to our most cherished values.
The Government have followed closely, and with deep concern, the mounting unrest in South Africa and the tragic death toll that has resulted. We have continued to condemn repression and human rights violations, and have repeatedly impressed on the South African Government the deep concern with which we view such things as forced removals and detention without trial.
What has been happening in South Africa is not simply a law and order issue. The continuing violence reflects the deep-seated frustrations of the majority of the people. We condemn violence, from whatever quarter, and we welcome the clear call from Bishop Tutu for an end to it. The declaration of a state of emergency last weekend will add to the growing numbers who languish in detention without trial or any legal recourse.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose——

Mr. Luce: I must say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who had some very strong views, went over his time, and I must proceed rapidly if I am to answer the debate.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Luce: I must answer the debate.
Such action will solve nothing. It underlines the urgency of fundamental reform.
I believe that it is not for us to prescribe solutions. This point came out in a remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), to whom I listened with the greatest care. He takes a very close


interest in that part of the world. The point came out also in a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
We have made it clear to the South African Government that urgent progress must be made towards a system of government which commands the support of the people of South Africa as a whole. We do not dismiss the reforms introduced earlier this year. They are only a very small beginning, but they are not insignificant. I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was far too dismissive of — indeed he paid no attention to — some of the changes, however modest they may be, which are taking place. Indeed, I recall that, in the debate of 25 April, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said very much the same thing in welcoming some of the changes.
The fundamental reforms which we all seek are still not in prospect, and such changes as have taken place have been overshadowed by repression in its ugliest form. It is, indeed, difficult to reconcile the South African Government's call at the beginning of the year for a wider dialogue with their subsequent action in arresting many of those whom black South Africans regard as their leaders.
We and our partners in Europe have issued an urgent call for the Government of South Africa to begin a dialogue with the genuine representatives of the non-white community, which will deal with the fundamental question of black political aspirations. We have called on them to take certain steps that we believe would create an atmosphere of confidence for such a dialogue. Those steps should be, first, the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other acknowledged political leaders. I noted with interest that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) advocated that. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said that that could be helpful to the climate in South Africa. There was some disagreement from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
Secondly, there should be an end to forced removals. Then there should be an end to detention without trial, then an early end to the state of emergency, then the progressive abolition of discriminatory legislation such as the pass laws and the Group Areas Acts and then a commitment to some form of common citizenship for all South Africans. Only by building on such a dialogue can the future security and prosperity of all South Africans be guaranteed.
I wish to come now to the heart of the debate—the question of engagement or disengagement with South Africa. Many hon. Members disagree with the Government's policy of developing and maintaining contacts, but we firmly believe that without contact there can be no influence on events. The disagreement is about means, rather than about ends. To turn our backs on South Africa would be irresponsible. Our conviction is that we should remain involved and use the means at our disposal to work for peaceful change. That reflects our belief that economic growth in South Africa, and especially the benefits it brings to the black community, can act as a catalyst for peaceful political change and will hasten the collapse of apartheid. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred to that.
Black skills are needed on a greatly increasing scale and at all levels, especially in the urban areas. Already that has led to the virtual ending of job reservation and a commitment to accept blacks as permanent residents in the urban areas. Moreover, in the longer term South Africa will face the problem of how to feed its growing

population. Without economic development it will be unable to do so. Africa is suffering enough without our seeking to make it suffer more. Improvements in the education and training of non-whites in South Africa are vital elements in the strategy. Our aid programme is devoted almost entirely to improving the standard of black education. The European Community code of conduct can play a useful role in encouraging representational rights for black workers through organisations of their choice and by urging companies to open up career opportunities through better training.
The European Community is now urgently to consider strengthening the code so that it will contribute more effectively to the abolition of apartheid. We believe that British companies have made an important contribution to that process and that there is room for further initiatives by the private sector—community work, social welfare of employees, equal opportunities and so on.
We understand why many now press for the alternative strategy—sanctions and disengagement, but we do not believe that such policies would produce the changes we all wish to see in South Africa. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was a member of a Government who for many years followed the policy of dialogue between this country and South Africa. I was interested to hear him say that his package of five measures, which I noted carefully, would be only symbolic——

Mr. Healey: No.

Mr. Luce: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman used that word.
The Government remain opposed to economic sanctions, and I make that absolutely clear in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. We oppose them because they simply will not work. They have virtually never worked when they have been tried. In Rhodesia they served to strengthen parts of the white business sector at the expense of the blacks. The South African economy is much stronger than was Rhodesia's and would undoubtedly adapt to sanctions.
Listening to the "End of Empire" series on the BBC the other day, I was interested to note that on the programme on Zimbabwe Mr. Smith himself said:
We were worried for I suppose a month or so, uncertain, but nothing terrible happened. In fact, it was a little better than we had expected, and then gradually got better not worse"—
[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen to me; it is better to listen.
We became industrially self-sufficient. We developed a much broader base to our whole economy and industry. It was a shot in the arm.
That was Mr. Smith speaking of his experience of the imposition of sanctions. I say, to be honest, that had I been in the House in the 1960s, I believe that I would have voted in favour of the imposition of sanctions against Rhodesia. Like the majority of my hon. Friends, I continued to vote in favour of them throughout the 1970s.
Despite that, the evidence is that they would not work. Sanctions would merely stiffen the resistence of the white South Africans to external pressure. Far from being persuaded to introduce more reforms, the Government in Pretoria would be more like to abandon their attempts at further advancement for the blacks. White South Africans are already an isolated society. Sanctions would merely reinforce the laager mentality. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir. J. Biggs-Davison) referred to that.
The brunt of economic measures would be borne by the black South Africans, and that would be bound to increase the bitterness and violence that already exists. The House cannot ignore the views of remarkable people such as Mrs. Suzman, Alan Paton, Chief Buthelezi and, in certain circumstances, Bishop Tutu, all of whom have spoken about the grave consequences of cutting off economic contact with the people of South Africa.
Sanctions would affect the economies of South Africa's neighbours, even if the latter did not formally participate in the sanctions policy. There is no doubt that the economic survival of the majority of South Africa's neighbours depends on their ability to continue trading with each other and with the republic.
There would, of course, be adverse effects for our economy, too. We have much at stake in South Africa, including jobs in this country — jobs about which Opposition Members as well as my hon. Friends and I care. There would be no point in sacrificing jobs and prosperity in Britain for the sake of measures which would not only be ineffective but which would do most harm to those whom we are seeking to help.
We are under no illusions about the difficulties of working for peaceful change in South Africa, but we believe that there is no constructive — I emphasise "constructive" — alternative to remaining closely and continously involved and to working for positive and peaceful change.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Only a few seconds remain for the debate. It is difficult to obtain information from South Africa. However, I have been advised today that the number of people detained is now well over 1,000, that at least one detainee has died and that there is great anxiety about the condition of many others.
For that reason, I have today sent a telegram to the International Red Cross asking it to intervene and to seek access to the people concerned. Will the Minister back that demand and call for access to be given so that the detainees may be seen and steps taken to look after their welfare?

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19)—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Civil Defence

Mr. Gary Waller: The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions, with some justification, that she has transformed the political agenda in Britain. One policy area that has been put back on the political agenda is civil defence.
In the five years up to 1978–79, Government spending on civil defence halved in real terms, and that was the culmination of a period in which the subject had been almost entirely ignored. Indeed, in the eight years to 1976, only one debate took place on that subject in the House.
That situation has changed radically in recent times and the Government must be credited with having made the necessary commitment in terms of resources and having established new standards of preparedness. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has made a vital contribution in keeping the issue before Parliament. As chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence, he has helped to stimulate a wider debate throughout the country.
Unilateral disarmers and those who have encouraged local authorities to declare their areas non-nuclear zones, thus perpetrating almighty hoaxes on the ratepayers, have resisted any commitment to civil defence, linking it exclusively with the issue of nuclear deterrence. Refusing to take part in civil defence exercises such as exercise Hard Rock, and ignoring the duties which central Government require local councils to undertake, does nothing to mitigate the dangers of nuclear warfare. On the contrary, such irresponsibility has extremely damaging effects.
It would be unwise to assume that the United Kingdom could never again be involved in hostilities which fall short of a nuclear conflict. During this century, nearly all the wars have been fought in ways that the experts failed to foretell. If preparations are based only on official expectations, a country will be ill-armed to deal with a crisis. Even a small chance that Britain may be sucked into a conventional war surely justifies the spending of a relatively small sum on civil defence. Many have suggested that conventional war might be much more likely a scenario, given the appalling consequences that are known to all nations of nuclear war and the devastation that would ensue. Lord Hill-Norton has said that in many ways nuclear war is the least likely option open to the Soviets.
We can all agree that the possibility, if not the probability, of a period of rising tension and the outbreak of conventional war before the use of any nuclear weapons might provide an opportunity for world leaders to pause and to step back from the brink. That presupposes that we shall have a nation, continent or world that is worth saving.
We tend to think only of the horrors of nuclear war. If they could rise from their graves, millions of victims of conventional war could tell us how terrible that is. More died in the fires of Dresden than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Time and time again in the second world war, and in other wars known by our contemporaries and predecessors, those who survived were those who were prepared, whether they called their preparedness civil defence or used another term.
There have been many wars since 1945, although the policy of deterrence has ensured that Europe has been


spared them. None of these wars has been nuclear. We cannot afford to neglect the possibility that the pattern could continue and that such a war could touch us too.
The policy of deterrence has averted a world war involving the major powers for 40 years, and as long as we remain a part of NATO and continue to maintain and modernise our defences, the possibility of nuclear war remains extremely low.
If we are to believe the results of attitude surveys, a high proportion of young people expect a nuclear war in their lifetime. I remain an optimist, but even an outside chance cannot be ignored. If we spend £50 billion annually on social security and the Health Service in protecting our people against sickness and unemployment and in making their old age tolerable and, we hope, productive and rewarding, should we not spend one thousandth of that sum in protecting them against obliteration?
Defence must surely be the first responsibility of any Government, for without defence there is nothing else. Our defence is rightly based on the thesis that any potential aggressor must believe that the price of his aggression will be too high to contemplate. However, a small part of the equation is the need to provide some protection if all our calculations are confounded. That is the belief of my hon. Friends and myself.
There used to be a consensus across party lines on this issue, but judging by the statements of many Opposition Members, and the absence of many other Opposition Members tonight, that seems, regrettably, no longer to be the position, although I know that, whatever their party, individuals such as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) support the National Council for Civil Defence.
It is our responsibility and duty to think the unthinkable. No one who cannot imagine a fire or a burglary in his or her home takes out insurance. If one never has a fire or burglary, it does not mean that that insurance has been wasted. Those who vote to ban the bomb, whether or not potential enemies ban it, are not necessarily opposed to our democratic way of life. Many are extremely sincere and honest in their beliefs, but they tend to regard the prospect of nuclear war as so horrific that their reaction is to ask why we should contemplate what would follow. Hence, there is an over-eagerness to show that nuclear winter — an as yet unproven hypothesis — must preclude any planning for the aftermath. Hence also, we have films that predicate only despair and death.
We should be ready to assert that, even in the remote event of all-out nuclear assault, as many as half our population could survive. Without civil defence, that proportion could be much lower; with civil defence, it could be higher. Whatever the scenario, there would almost certainly be some survivors. Self-preservation dictates that we should salvage as much as we can after the event.
Even Hiroshima was survived by many. Hiroshima was in a non-nuclear zone—if we need reminding of that—and, if its population had been prepared, many more people could have survived or escaped the appalling injuries from which they suffered then and from which many continue to suffer now.
More modern weapons would produce more catastrophic effects but, even then, many of those living some distance from a blast would undoubtedly survive, if sufficient protection were provided. The proportion who

survived could be increased at a relatively small cost if they knew what action to take. Education is a relatively inexpensive but vital part of civil defence planning.
Civil defence represents a small but vital element in the theory of deterrence. The threat to use nuclear weapons in self-defence could hardly be credible to a potential adversary if it were obvious that the Government could not contemplate such a decision because its effects would be utterly calamitous and were not even prepared to take the minimum action necessary to fulfil their responsibilities of protecting their people. That was the signal that the previous Government were sending out before the Conservatives were elected in 1979. I am glad that that signal has now altered.
Britain spends less than £1 a year per head on civil defence; the Swiss spend more than £10, showing not only that neutrality does not make one immune from nuclear fallout but that civil defence is vital whether one believes in unilateral or multilateral disarmament. Nuclear-free, as has been pointed out, is not nuclear safe. It is estimated that in Switzerland 85 per cent. of the population might survive a nuclear strike. Our geological and geographical situation is different. I would not suggest that we should go to the same lengths as the Swiss, but we can certainly learn from them, just as we can learn from the Swedes. In the Soviet Union nuclear survival is taught in the schools and public buildings are designed with nuclear wars in view. If civil defence is right for the Soviets, why do so many people think that it is wrong for us?
New factors must be considered. Trident and other weapon systems developed by NATO and the Warsaw pact are more accurate than their predecessors. By providing pinpoint accuracy aimed at military targets, they provide the option of a response short of total annihilation. The ability to shelter one's population must be seen as a vital part of a credible deterrent. I have severe reservations about the strategic defence initiative, but if one day it comes to fruition, it must increase the possibility of conventional war, even if it provides a defence against nuclear weapons. In that case, the priority to be accorded civil defence would be immeasurably increased.
It is important to appreciate that civil defence should not exist only to deal with total war. I hope that the Government will expand its role to help deal with any civil emergency—for example, a land slip, a flood, a plane crash in a heavily populated area or any comparable disaster. Such a development would also help to unite people who vary greatly is their conception of a proper defence posture, but who could agree on the life saving role of volunteers in peace and war. The possible need to amend the Civil Defence Act 1948 to take account of such a change should be urgently considered.
Last month the Home Office issued its updated emergency planning guidance to local authorities. It still seems that a high proportion of local authorities will fail to complete their emergency plans by the end of this year. My local authority of Bradford, which at one time sheltered under the nonsensical self-deception of being a nuclear-free zone, has, I am glad to say, given up that dubious status. But I doubt whether civil defence has adequate authority there, let alone in counties and districts which are controlled by more Left-wing regimes. I think of the authority in which my lion. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has his constituency.
A properly manned inspectorate should be established to ensure that all local authorities fulfil their legal


commitments, especially with regard to the 1983 regulations. It is not up to local authorities to decide unilaterally that they will not make proper preparations for people's protection. For some limited civil defence purposes, central Government provides councils with 100 per cent. grants, but for other purposes only 75 per cent. grants exist. Civil defence is too important to be threatened by rate capping and penalties on overspending, even if such overspending is in reality brought about by less vital projects. If there is any danger that councils may justify their neglect of civil defence by reference to such factors, surely 100 per cent. grants should in all cases be made available by Whitehall. The progess made by local authorities should be monitored and reported on annually to Parliament.
Unfortunately, public education is still inadequate. Much more should be done, not to alarm people but to reassure them. We need to exercise as much sensitivity in getting our message across about civil defence as we do on the drugs menace, where the message can easily be distorted and misunderstood.
We all like to switch off when the stewardess on our aircraft demonstrates the use of life-saving equipment, but in our heart of hearts we are glad that it is there. We must be prepared for any eventuality, although we know that it is unlikely. The price of civil defence is a small price to pay for greater security, but it is a price we cannot afford not to pay.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am most interested in this subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, we rarely get the opportunity to discuss one of the most important aspects of life. Only once in the past two years has the subject been raised in the House.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about reporting to Parliament, because it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should keep a close watch on and monitor what local authorities are doing. It would be interesting every year to have a report of what they had achieved, how much of their quota they had spent, and what further funds were required to make a comprehensive safety net. We have already been told that some authorities are reluctant to do this, and some compulsion may be necessary. It is up to my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that happens. I know that he is doing all he can by means of persuasion, but compulsion may be necessary in spite of all his persuasive powers.
It is quite wrong that civil defence should be under civilian control. In war, all our defences, be they protective or military should be under military control. It is quite wrong that civil defence should be under the control of an unelected area representative—it should be either a civil servant or an elected person, but preferably it should come under the control of the military.
There are two aspects to civil defence—protecting our citizens against nuclear or conventional attack, and protecting them against an attack that is becoming more and more apparent. The Warsaw pact has small teams of people who are capable of disrupting our vital installations. That perhaps poses an even greater danger than the first aspect of civil defence, because if our vital

installations, such as electricity and water, are tampered with, all the other precautions that are taken to defend our citizens against nuclear attack will be quite useless.
The home defence force consists of only 5,000 men. I believe that we need 100,000. We are told that in the event of war, either conventional or nuclear, we shall be left with only 100,000 people here to protect our citizens. That is not sufficient. The additional 5,000-strong home defence force is important, but a much greater number of people should be capable of coming to the fore to be mobilised and trained for both defence and military aid to the civil power.
Small units of 30 or 40 people would be extremely valuable, provided they were properly trained and equipped and came under military control. We know that the Warsaw pact has small teams of people who speak very good English, are highly trained and know the country. In many cases, they have been living here for some time and know the area.
Hon. Members will be aware that schemes exist, such as Lord Hill-Norton's under which volunteers can be trained quite cheaply. A comparative table shows that 100,000 volunteers cost £17 million and that 700,000 cost £120 million. Such volunteers would not be paid but would have arm bands and equipment and could render military and other services to the community, including civil defence. They would be ready at the drop of a hat to come to the aid of the military forces and the civilian power. We shall require such people in the event of hostilities, when very few people will be left to man the country.
The Regular Army costs about £11,000 a soldier, the Territorial Army about £2,500 and the home defence force only about £574.
We need to do three things. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister has to force local authorities to carry out their statutory duties. Secondly, at the end of the year, I should like to see him produce a table showing those who have defaulted and those who are up to standard. Thirdly, we need to provide the additional money required to bring the whole of our civil defence up to strength.
We must look at the whole of our home defence forces. I believe that, under the Warsaw pact, if we were engaged in either nuclear or conventional war, we would be left at home with too few to protect our citizens. That is the danger. The additional numbers we provide for that purpose can also be used in civilian occupations to help perform numerous tasks. These home forces need to be considerably increased—5,000 is not enough. I should like to see many more people properly trained and armed, and capable of carrying out not only military but also many civilian tasks that they are called on to perform. A wealth of voluntary effort in all skills is waiting to be mobilised.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome the opportunity for this debate on a general theme which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) has just said, perhaps too often has received too little attention.
At the outset I wish to endorse all the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), although I may put a different emphasis on one or two of his points. Of all the many aspects and assets that make up what we may loosely term civil defence, I choose to deal with three cases. I shall therefore be selective and, I hope, brief.
As so often with so many debates on civil defence, this debate will suffer from what I label a double defect. With no personal malice whatever towards the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I believe his party must take the blame for this. By a double defect, I mean, first, the failure of some many members of Opposition parties to grasp the totality and the importance of civil defence. Secondly, following from the first defect, there is a total absence of positive and constructive input into the debate by so many members of Opposition parties.
On that point, I make one half-concession. The term "civil defence" is misleading. It concentrates the mind excessively, and sometimes exclusively, on wartime emergency. Perhaps it would be better if we scrubbed "civil defence" out of our vocabulary entirely, and spoke of "civil emergency planning".
Surely the essential point is that we are concerned to protect the civilian population from the effects of all disasters, whatever their cause, in which the regular services of fire brigade, police, ambulance and so on, either would be severely strained by the size of the particular disaster, or unable to operate effectively in time.
Of course, nuclear, biological and chemical warfare constitute potentially the worst forms of disaster we can suffer, but man-made disasters of a different sort and natural disasters are the equal concerns of civil emergency planning. All too often Opposition parties do not seem to have realised that. To be fair—I like to try to be fair—neither did the Conservative party in its 1983 election manifesto. In it, we concentrated exclusively on wartime emergency planning. To be even fairer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said—I hope that the Minister will take note of this—the Government have tarried too long in amending the Civil Defence Act 1948.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman is being so incredibly fair that I want to help him be a little fairer and go that little step further. I ask him to recognise that if, like the Minister and myself, he had served on the Committee on the Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties, he would know that we said that lack of effective civil emergency planning would be made infinitely worse by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council.

Mr. Hunter: I do not wish to be drawn into all those details. Continuing the amicable theme of being fair, I welcome the opportunity of having learnt a little more.
I wish to explore three points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take my comments as the positive, constructive and friendly criticisms that I intend them to be. First, it can he argued that since 1979, the Government's attitude and actions on civil defence have shown signs of a lack of interdepartmental co-operation. The laudable exhortations and actions of the Home Office have not been matched by other Departments. For example, "Civil Defence and the Farmer" was too long in appearing and is too light in content. Moreover, there has been inadequate research into providing effective guidance for preparing a viable policy for food and agriculture in times of emergency. Farmers need more guidance on civil defence measures. There is also a strong case to be made for identifying a nucleus of farmer wardens from among current civil defence volunteers and training them in conjunction with local authorities.
In the Department of Health and Social Security, all is far from acceptable in the provision of emergency health

and medical services. In 1983, the British Medical Association reported on the medical demands that a nuclear war might create. It found the present Department of Health and Social Security war plans quite ineffective. Interestingly, by a vote of 248 to 78, the BMA voted to be actively involved in the governmental war planning process. There are grounds for concern about emergency supplies of insulin, as I know from my dealings with a pharmaceutical company in my constituency. There should be greater emphasis on planning peacetime emergency provision sufficient to deal with the Bhopal category of emergency, when some 25,000 people were in sudden and dire need of medical treatment.
Similar concern can be expressed about emergency planning for industry. There is need for improved civil emergency advice to industry through the reintroduction of guidance circulars and liaison between industry and local civil defence authorities. The Department of Trade and Industry line hitherto has been that responsibility for civil defence lies with industry itself. However, that attitude is not good enough. I understand that last January the Department announced the setting up of a study to assess the essential civil defence requirements that industry can be called upon to supply and its capability to meet those requirements. That is to be welcomed. The essential point is that there are grounds for concern about interdepartmental co-operation and motivation.
My second major point is that the 1983 civil defence regulations required local authorities to undertake certain duties that incurred capital and current expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, the response from local authorities has not been impressive. The requirements in themselves were and are laudable. The charge against them, arguably, is that they do not go far enough, but what is needed is more detailed guidance by Government to local authorities on the raising and training of civil defence volunteers. Defined and timed objectives must be stated.
We need a civil defence inspectorate with powers and resources to monitor performance and to enforce compliance with the 1983 regulations. We need Government guidance on the required levels of emergency planning staffs employed by local authorities. At the end of last year, about 50 per cent. of the emergency planning staffs were undermanned even by 1972 standards, and scarcely a handful of the 54 local authorities had completed emergency plans in accordance with the 1983 regulations. All this is far from satisfactory.
The greatest defect, however, is financing. All civil defence and emergency expenditure must be taken outside the rate support grant framework and be completely reimbursed. Nor should capital expenditure on civil defence be counted against normal local authority allocations. There is still much work to be done with the implementation of the 1983 regulations.
Thirdly, there is a dire need for a clearer and more succinct overall civil emergency planning strategy. The most adverse comment that can be made about the Government's actions is that they are making well-intentioned but ineffective noises and paying lip service to the need more than they are delivering the goods. It must be acknowledged, however, that the Government are doing infinitely more than a Government of any other political party would be doing.
Within the overall civil emergency planning strategy, priority must be given to restoring public confidence in


emergency planning. A long-term strategy must be adopted, and it must have defined and timed objectives just as the Swiss and Swedes have had for many years. Planning and preparation by all agencies must be coordinated and monitored at all levels. There must be provision to ensure compliance with the law. It can be argued that insufficient thought has been given to how civil emergency planning can be most effectively and economically organised and delivered. There is certainly scope for academic research. Above all, the public will have no faith in civil emergency planning which fails to protect the individual. That can only mean shelters and relocation schemes. Local authorities must prepare—and keep updated—effective evacuation and reception plans. The absence of such plans is a major defect in existing regulations. There should be research into the viability of a long-term public and domestic shelter programme, now notable by its absence. All of those things should appear in a civil emergency planning strategy.
Good intentions and considerable advance characterise civil emergency planning during the past few years, but there is still much work to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us assurances that the work will be done.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Many people do not want to talk about civil defence. It frightens some, and others belittle it as irrelevant to modern war machines. It is rather like people not wanting to talk about a serious illness because not much can be done about it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on raising this subject, although I should have congratulated him even more if he had secured an earlier debate.
None of us expect to have to call upon an emergency service. The more we can do to prevent our having recourse to emergency services, the better we like it. But we know that it will sometimes be needed. The quality of the trained personnel is then critical. That is how one must consider civil defence. We hope that it will be in much less demand than the fire service, but unless we make sure that in our local communities there are those who can help in emergencies we shall suffer an even greater catastrophe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to what could happen in the event of a nuclear war. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to civil emergencies. The sooner the Government change the 1948 regulations to include civil emergencies the better.
The emergency services come very much into their own on the fringe of a catastrophe. It often takes time before the professional services can arrive on the scene in strength, and before they arrive the emergency services perform a very useful role. When the professionals arrive the emergency services can help with evacuation. Emergencies do not normally last only for a few minutes; they can last for days or even weeks. During that period a volunteer force that is trained in certain specialties and that has communication facilities available to it can greatly relieve the pressure on the professional services.
Furthermore, this is very much a community activity. The service will know the locality well. It will also know what communication facilities are available. Although the

main emergency services were quickly sent to the disaster area when a dam burst its banks in Italy last week, a great deal had to be done initially by the local volunteer force.
We adopt a very low-key approach to civil defence. It is not very well publicised. We shall have to do a public relations job and sell the idea of joining the civil defence force because it is a worthwhile community service, not only in the remote event of warfare but in the event of civil emergencies. We must also sell the idea of a credible civil defence strategy. The Government must put forward a meaningful strategy and sell the idea that if war should break out it is important to have people in certain key positions. It will need a great deal of selling. After two world wars people feel tremendously relieved that it is all over. It will be difficult, after such a long gap, to get people thinking again about civil defence. But we must do so, because there are so many different types of weapon about. The Government must try to do as good a PR job as they can.
Local authorities will play a key role in civil defence. It is disappointing that, so far, few authorities have approached the task with enthusiasm, or even with a commitment to do it at some time in the future. More than half of the emergency centre programme has not been completed. Some authorities have ignored civil defence completely. Other authorities and organisations have expressed outright hostility to the idea that civil defence is important. My hon. Friend mentioned nuclear-free zones. I live in a nuclear-free zone, but I feel no more safe than do my constituents who do not live in such a zone. We must overcome those delusions.
Our communications systems for civil defence must be appropriate for wartime as well as for civil emergencies. The implementation of the recommendations in the report of the Home Office working party on communications will be a key factor in setting up a network that can be coordinated nationally. In an emergency, communications are critical. If we had an emergency in one of our cities, two great problems would be communicating with people to tell them what to do, and moving people around the area. In some cities, a small stretch of roadworks is enough to cause traffic jams. We are talking about bigger problems than that.
The best way to encourage local authorities to undertake civil defence programmes would be for the Government to reimburse their capital expenditure and their expenditure on emergency planning personnel. They will not respond unless the Government offer a carrot as well as a stick. It is only right that the Government take responsibility for civil defence and pay for it through the Exchequer. They should not expect local authorities to bear the entire cost. I realise that the benefits will be seen in local communities as well as in the national Parliament, but with the present restraints on local government expenditure, we cannot expect authorities to co-operate willingly on the current terms.
We should also consider chemical and biological warfare. The public seem to know very little about that. I am sure that our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence know much about it. If there is a deterrent balance in nuclear weapons, I am sure that the alternatives of chemical and biological weapons will be considered. We must provide information about such weapons to the volunteer force, and we should publicise the precautions that can be taken to cope with chemical and biological


warfare. Such provision will be essential if we are to create a civil defence force that will be effective, should the need arise.
We must remember that major emergencies come out of the blue. If they did not, we would not need so many preventive measures. Major civil emergencies especially are completely unexpected. It is then that the local volunteer force can do so much to avoid the worst results of such a catastrophy.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who does so much to publicise the need for civil defence, and the importance of the volunteers to the community, to continue to put across the message that civil defence has an important part to play in a modern society, despite the terrible weapons that are available to major countries.

Mr. John Powley: Even at this early hour of the morning, I am glad to add my words to this well-initiated debate on civil defence. I suspect that the numbers in the House represent the feeling of our respective parties towards civil defence. My party and Government have a strong feeling for civil defence, but all the Opposition parties have little of it. That is adequately represented this evening—I was going to say to the tune of 10:1, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has just entered the Chamber, so the odds have shortened slightly to 10:2. We are glad that the hon. Lady has joined us, because I am sure that she will hear something to her benefit from the Government Benches.
There are many definitions of what civil defence is and should be. I draw the attention of the House to the definition that it is the means to protect the civilian population from the effects of all natural disasters, in which the regular services would be severely strained by the size of the disaster, or unable to act in time. We should concern ourselves with it whether it is in wartime or peacetime, because there are disasters at both times for which we should make provision. Thankfully, we live in a time of peace, but that time has come about because of the defence policies followed by this country and others since the last world war—a policy of deterrence in the main. We have had that peace for 40 years.
However, even in peacetime, many horrific disasters have occurred, such as that at Bhopal and those in Canada and Italy. At such times, we need civil defence provisions. Just because we live in peace does not mean that disasters will not happen. It does not mean that we should not make provision. We hope that we shall never see such disasters, or that they will never happen to us or our friends, but inevitably, things do happen. We should take proper precautions against such art eventuality. I am speaking of major disasters that affect countries or cities.
In our lives, we all make insurance arrangements against things that we hope will never happen. We now wear seat belts as a precaution against an accident in our car that we hope will never happen. In a minor way, that is a civil defence arrangement. We take out insurance for many other things. We insure our homes against contingencies and make provisions of that kind.
Those are precautions in a small way, but we can multiply them into the need for a local authority, an area or a country to make civil defence arrangements for local populations. There is general recognition by the public of the need for civil defence, but the public at large need to

be wakened up to the eventualities that could occur and to the need to guard against them. The public accept and understand the need for civil defence, and the Government and we as Members of Parliament have a responsibility to bring that home to our constituents and to people at large.
As many of my hon. Friends may remember, I was on a local authority and we tried to accept our responsibilities. I refreshed my mind about those responsibilities before coming to the House, and as I understand it, county councils should have the following obligations:
To make and keep under review plans for the continuation of a number of essential services in war.
To arrange for the training in civil defence of their own staff and those of districts and London Boroughs.
To participate in training or training exercises organised by the designated ministers.
To make arrangements for the organisation of civil defence volunteers.
To provide emergency centres for civil defence direction.
To implement plans as directed by the designated minister.
Those are the responsibilities of the county councils throughout this country, and one would like to see them taking those responsibilities a bit more seriously than they do. Many are conscientious in that respect, but some are not as good as others. The lower tier, the district councils, have an obligation to assist the county councils wherever that is possible, although, of course, the counties have overall responsibility.
Ours is not the only country to have civil defence, but to hear some Opposition Members one would think we were. Of course, as my hon. Friends said earlier, Russia and China have active civil defence organisations and many countries in Europe also accept their responsibilities for civil defence. We are doing nothing more than keeping pace with other countries. It is easy to talk of wartime precautions and one understands them more readily, but we should look more seriously at the prospect of local disasters.
One of my hon. Friends referred to nuclear-free zones. I live in a nuclear-free zone, but I do not feel any more secure there than I felt when I was the leader of Cambridge city council and did not live in a nuclear-free zone. In fact, I felt more secure in my previous city in terms of civil defence than in the city in which I now live. That is because we observed civil defence precautions whereas my present local authority, the district council, makes no provision for civil defence.
It seems that we have a nuclear-free zone, which includes a civil defence-free zone, or a civil defence zone. I should prefer to live in the civil defence zone. I should feel safer if my local authority took the issue seriously. The authority takes its support for CND seriously, but that will get my constituents nowehere and will mean that they are less secure. I wish that the council would pay as much attention to its civl defence responsibilities, becaue my constituents would then feel more secure.
Heaven forbid that it should happen, but there could be a civil disaster in Norwich. We have a modest airport and there could be a plane disaster over the city or a plane could hit a multi-storey block of flats. There should be proper civil defence arrangements for such a contingency. The local authority does not make such arrangements.
I regret the attitude of many other Labour-controlled authorities. I understand that South Yorkshire county


council has condemned the Government's "irresponsibility" in suggesting that it is anything but futile to plan for a nuclear emergency. A spokesman for Labour-controlled Hackney borough council has said:
We should not be doing civil defence at all. It is an absolute waste of time.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has gone so far as to say:
Civil defence plans now being developed are a thinly veiled cover for a policy of military repression always available to deal with any opposition to Government policy.
I cannot imagine a more ludicrous attitude.
The Government have an honourable attitude to civil defence, but I hope that they will be firmer. We are too often wise after the event. With peacetime or wartime planning in civil defence, it is better to be wise before the event than to have regrets afterwards. The Government must take civil defence more seriously—commendable though their attitude is already—and impress on local authorities the need for better arrangements. Better publicity must be given to the arrangements. Then we shall all feel safer in our beds. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give us that reassurance.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: The problem that civil defence has in projecting a proper image has emerged directly or indirectly from the speeches of all my hon. Friends. The concept of civil defence in the public mind seems to be one of an outdated procedure which is irrelevant to the needs of modern disasters and warfare and is an inadequate response to the ultimate threat. As such, this rather weary impression has provided a perfect target, a focus for the anti-nuclear lobby.
Some part of our job, I think, must be to redefine the role of civil defence, to change the emphasis that we attach to it. To this extent, the National Council for Civil Defence and the Trebah Trust have done a great deal to give it a new orientation by emphasising the all-hazards approach as opposed to the single response to the nuclear threat.
The all-hazards approach accepts the fact that, in the most extreme circumstances, there must be a response to the nuclear threat. However, this is perhaps the most unlikely scenario to occur. While we maintain the strategy of deterrence, it is unlikely that we will be attacked with nuclear weapons. But there is a much more likely hazard in natural or industrial disaster. It is in this area that the all-hazards approach can be best developed.
This raises the question not only of redefinition but of presentation. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) alluded to this by saying that we should perhaps have a better PR presentation of the approach of civil defence to hazards. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) suggested that the phraseology "civil emergency planning" might more accurately describe what civil defence, in our view, is attempting to do.
This more positive response should alert the Government and local authorities to their responsibilities. The Government's role is clearly, if broadly, defined in that they have the responsibility for long-term planning, which means that there must be some co-ordination between the different Departments of state. It is apparent, from the Questions that we have tabled to different Departments in the last year or so, that there are different

degrees of priority within different Departments, a different emphasis and sometimes, it would seem, a different sense of direction. There is a need for a comprehensive civil defence strategy, and for that to be co-ordinated in the first instance.
Secondly, central Government have a duty to provide the finance. It is an unfair and unrealistic burden on local authorities to imagine that, through their ratepayers, and in the difficult circumstances in which some of them have been placed recently, they can make provision for the finance to do what is necessary to meet the risks.
Having said generally what central Government should do, I think that it is in local authorities that the operations can be most effectively deployed. Local government must seek to adopt a realistic approach to its responsibilities, to co-ordinate local needs and to recognise how local services can be brought into operation in conjunction with civil defence services so that they meet the needs of the locality. This is particularly important when dealing with the sort of localised industrial disaster in which the efforts and energies of those outside the local community have to be harnessed to bring help and support.
It is sad that many local authorities have been indifferent or downright obstructive to suggestions that they should carry out civil defence planning. My hon. Friends have alluded to experiences in their local authorities. Mine is perhaps, regrettably, typical. The London borough of Southwark, in one of its committees, discussed the Government's 1983 civil defence regulations, and took a positive decision that it would ignore or not implement them. It has not even taken this decision to the full council for further discussion. It compounds what I feel to be contemptuous irresponsibility by making positive and substantial contributions to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am conscious that a number of the members of council belong to the CND, and I am surprised that they have not declared their interests in the members' declaration of interests, which all members of Southwark council are required to make.
A further cynical posturing by that council is to declare itself a nuclear-free zone. Such cynicism, such a contemptuous attitude to the needs of those whom it is there to serve, suggest that the Government must play a positive role in leading and directing councils in the way in which they should go. Only by so doing can the public at large be protected from and reassured about the threats and hazards.
There is a need for public relations presentation, not in any superficial way, but to reassure the public and to restore public confidence that the emergency and planning services exist to meet any hazard that might arise. In restoring confidence, there is the need to recruit and harness public participation. There is a willingness by many to volunteer to help in extreme cases. If that can be seen to be professionally organised and the training to be professionally directed and relevant to the need, I am sure that recruits of the right calibre and quality will come forward.
We need a positive response to the likely and less likely threats that might arise. That is what civil defence is about. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister is here this evening because I hope that he will be able to give a sure-footed lead in the direction in which we must go in future.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on the admirable way in which he introduced this debate. Fourteen hon. Members sought to table a motion on civil defence for debate this evening, and he was fortunate to come out at the top of the list. I regret that the lateness of the hour means that there is a smaller attendance than I had hoped. Indeed, there is only one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches. Distinguished as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may be, it shows how his party regards civil defence. I very much regret that.
Until relatively recently, civil defence had all-party support. The humanitarian and other advantages of a civil defence policy were considered to be above politics. For some strange reason the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament has adopted the view that civil defence is not a good thing. It claims that it encourages the thought that war is survivable, while at the same time it advances a strange and quaint theory that the Soviet bloc would feel threatened by an effective civil defence service.
Clearly no sensible person could possibly believe that. The Russian civil defence system in Moscow is comprehensive, and we do not feel threatened by that. We feel much more threatened by their very effective arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that are pointing in this direction.
We know positively that there were about 150,000 casualties in the war in Vietnam. We also know that 3 million civilians died. That is a significant factor in this sphere. It shows that the civilian population in any conflict is extremely vulnerable. Unless it is given proper protection and facilities for looking after itself, together with proper leadership, the chances of it surviving are much less than they would otherwise be. That is an unfortunate state of affairs.
Apart from preparing for war, civil defence has much to do in preparing for civil emergencies, and I commend the admirable decision that the Minister has taken to follow an all-hazards approach, for only by adopting such an approach can we hope to generate the commitment and enthusiasm of the man in the street.
We in this country have been fortunate in having had 40 years of peace. During that time, people's memories of war have dimmed. Nevertheless, we have often seen the advantages of proper civil emergency planning, which has enabled necessary services to be provided in emergencies.
I have in mind the blizzards that occurred a few years ago in the west country, when the civilian population became acutely aware of what civil defence could contribute to their general welfare. That experience encouraged large numbers of people to volunteer for civil defence service. They realised that it was necessary to be equipped to look after not only oneself and one's family, but one's friends and neighbours. A proper course in civil defence is of great advantage to people.
At Flixborough in Lincolnshire, an incident involving a chemical works a few years ago caused devastation. That, too, demonstrated how the civil defence services play a leading role. Many other examples in other countries remind us of the need for emergency planning. For example, at Three Mile Island in the United States there was an escape of nuclear radiation and the emergency planning services played a major role.
In Seveso, dioxin gas escaping from a chemical plant caused many casualties. Had the civil emergency caring services been better equipped, the casualty rate would have been much lower. The same applies to the Bhopal tragedy in India. Had the emergency planning services been as well equipped as those in Pakistan, the casualty rate of 2,000 deaths and 100,000 severely ill would have been much smaller. In Canada, a chloride gas discharge occurred as the result of a. rail crash. The most recent example of such emergencies was the Stava dam breaking in Italy.
Nearer home, there were the events on the M25 when fog descended on a short stretch. Yesterday the coroner declared that it was an act of God. Fourteen were killed on a bright sunny morning. It was the gathering of fog in one area that caused that devastation. Again, the emergency services came into play. It might have been possible to save more lives if some of those involved in the accidents had had experience and knowledge of emergency service work. We must pay a great compliment to the fire service, the ambulance service, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and many other voluntary services that we are so fortunate to have. They do so very well on occasions such as the M25 tragedy. There is still a major role for the private individual to play if he is given the opportunity to become an emergency or civil defence volunteer.
It is unfortunate that we still have local authorities which maintain that they are nuclear-free zones. It seems entirely inappropriate that in 1985 there are those who are so short-sighted that they cannot see the need for nuclear systems in medical treatment and other areas. These systems make nonsense of the claim that the areas that they represent include no nuclear capability. It is an essential aspect of medical treatment that such facilities are available and it is nonsense to claim that an area that includes a hospital with a unit dealing with cancer, for example, does not have a nuclear facility. To pretend that it does not exist is ridiculous.
There have been some excellent contributions to the debate. Apart from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I was intrigued by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who spoke of voluntary service in defence of the home in a more general context. There is a major role for those who are involved in the Territorial Army and the general services in leading the civilian population in protecting itself when the occasion demands. As we experience such a low-key civil defence provision, we should take advantage of the knowledge of those who have received training in raising the standard of preparedness and knowledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was helpful in mentioning various other aspects of civil defence and highlighting the nonsense that is talked by local authorities which claim to be nuclear-free. He spoke of the need for a comprehensive system and to provide adequately for a service throughout the country.
I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) and for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who have to suffer under nuclear-free local authorities. These authorities are neglecting their duties and responsibilities to those who they represent. We have to make up a lot of lost ground. Since 1968 we have not made adequate


provision for civil defence. This Government are doing their best to catch up, but the major investment in terms of shelter and other materials that is needed cannot possibly be provided within a short period.
The Swiss, Swedes, Germans, French and people of other civilised countries have got on with the job over the past 20 or 30 years and have built up a nucleus of civil defence capability. It is sad that we have not made that provision. Immediately after the last war, all the buildings that were constructed in the City of London and. I imagine, in most of the other major cities specifically provided for a civil defence capability. The majority of underground car parks were built with that point in mind. I am sorry that that process has not been continued. In many other countries, especially Sweden, allowances are made for the additional cost of providing this type of accommodation.
For a long time I have advocated giving special rate relief to those buildings that are capable of being used for alternative purposes—storage or underground parking—and of being converted quickly and satisfactorily into shelters.
We must press the Government on a number of matters, especially the need to provide 100 per cent. funding for civil defence. Treasury Ministers shy away whenever it is suggested that more money should be spent. However, it is not necessary to spend more money. It is necessary only to readjust our present finances. It is possible for the Government to withhold funds from rate support grant to ensure that 100 per cent. funding for civil defence can be provided. This is essential because, in an emergency, the population would tend to move towards those parts of the country that had provided a civil defence capability, and would leave their own areas. It would be unfair if the areas that had provided adequately for their population faced a massive influx of people from other areas.
We must provide for civil defence in the same way that we provide out of central funds for the Territorial Army and a number of other essential national forces. It is wrong to ask local authorities to make a 25 per cent. commitment, especially when such expenditure would mean that they were liable to pay a penalty in terms of Government grants. The Government must take this message on board. They must deal with this problem properly and sensibly and say, "We shall provide 100 per cent. funding because this is such an important issue."
The same conditions should apply to the Manpower Watch figures. Local authorities are being told that, if they recruit more than their previous manpower numbers, the extra recruitment will be excluded. Nevertheless, I believe that total expenditure—not just extra expenditure—and total manpower devoted to civil defence should be taken out of the limitations that have been imposed in recent years by central Government on local authorities. This measure is far too important to be treated in any other way.
The other important issue that I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to support is the amendment of the Civil Defence Act 1948 at the earliest possible opportunity. We are endeavouring to obtain support for such an amendment through a private Member's Bill, but if that support is not available, the Government must deal with the matter; clearly we can properly exercise the all-hazards approach only if the Act is amended. That all-hazards approach is the best and safest way of ensuring all-party support.
I compliment the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on leading his party towards the need for civil defence, and I hope some of its members will soon follow his lead, just as I hope that Opposition Members will follow the rather more statesmanlike lead of their colleagues in the other place. Labour Members in the other place who may not be so hidebound by the reselection process, undoubtedly made some valuable speeches in the debate in February. They do not have those worries and problems, or the fear of a reaction from the local Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, so they could make a more positive contribution.

Mr. Soley: Much like the Top Salaries Review Body.

Mr. Thorne: The analogy is not quite right. Members in the other place looked at the matter realistically and came up with sensible arguments and solutions. They made it clear that people in all parties viewed the matter most seriously, and believed that something must be done about it sooner rather than later.
I cannot understand why Opposition Members are not pressing harder than we are for money to be spent on civil defence, on the basis that that might leave less money for general defence expenditure. I would not wish that, but I would have thought that that argument might have appealed to them.
Finally, terrorism is a much greater problem now than ever before because the range of equipment available to a potential terrorist has grown considerably. We are undoubtedly entering an era in which a terrorist is likely to be able to use sophisticated equipment and certainly to cause a chemical, biological or nuclear explosion. We are inadequately prepared to meet that.
Some Governments support terrorism, as President Reagan and others have made clear in recent weeks. Terrorists are supported by a blind eye being turned to their activities, often by countries actively supplying them with equipment to export elsewhere. That is worrying. Until relatively recently, only five countries could build a nuclear weapon. That number will soon approach 19. Inevitably, before the end of this century — possibly even before the end of this decade—a country with terrorism at heart could be in possession of this information. That causes considerable anxiety.
Moreover, those countries with chemical works capable of producing fertiliser are able to produce nerve gas that could be discharged into an area, thereby causing enormous casualties. The Government must turn their attention to that. They would be severely criticised indeed if an explosion or discharge occured in a densely populated area, be it an airport or the centre of a major city, as a result of terrorist attack. The Government must ensure that adequate medical supplies and other equipment are on hand to deal with such a situation. Clothing, blood plasma and many other things would be required very quickly.
The medical profession has made it clear that at present in adequate resources have been made available. It is incumbent on the politicians to ensure that that state of affairs does not exist for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
The case for civil defence had been made by my hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us extremely promising news about a major boost in this area and that he will ensure that no stones are left unturned in giving adequate protection to the population as a whole.

Mr. Clive Soley: If I were an optimist I would be encouraged by the number of Conservative Members who so willingly support increased public expenditure. We have even had calls for this area to be excluded from rate capping. I have recently made calls for excluding victim support schemes from rate capping but the Government do not seem to be too keen on doing that. I therefore suspect that they will not be too keen on excluding civil defence.
The myth is that the Government are always willing to put money galore into defence, civil defence and law and order, despite the fact that they know that without other social, economic and political policies all one gets is more instability. In fact, one is throwing good money after bad and creating the very instability that one does not wish to see. That applies to defence systems and to law and order.
Another theme running through the debate has been the request for a co-ordinated response in civil defence, or civil emergency planning, as I, along with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) would prefer to call it. That is a very good idea. This is where my heart goes out to the Minister. He is not a bad chap. He is really quite nice. Along with myself and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) he sat for long hours discussing the Local Government Bill, which abolishes the metropolitan counties. That Bill devastated the civil emergency systems, and the Minister knew it. He admitted it, and Lord Whitelaw said it as well. In fact, they all said it.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) is right to talk of the way in which the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries have highly trained people who speak good English ready to be strategically placed in the United Kingdom to disrupt this country. Few Conservative Members realised it, but the hon. Gentleman was talking about the Secretary of State for the Environment, because when he decimated the major conurbations and their local government, he also decimated a co-ordinated response towards civil emergency planning between the fire, ambulance and police services. Those are three of the most crucial services. The Minister knows that that is the case, and it is on the Hansard record of the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead had better speak to the Prime Minister and decide just who these well-spoken, highly paid agents of this alien power really are, and what they are up to.
I am afraid that the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was full of fallacies. He came out with the fine old assumption that we hear repeated by Tory Members—that the deterrent factor has kept the peace for the past 40 years. It would be wrong of me to involve myself in a long debate about that, but I will respond in this way: at best, all we can say about that assumption, to use the good old Scottish phrase, is that it is not proven. At worst—and this is the point to which Tory Members always fail to address themselves—such an assumption can lead to a dangerous self-deception, whereby a country thinks it can continue to deter war by producing more and more sophisticated weapons, when in fact the history of warfare shows that the more a country plans to use its weaponry against another power, the more likely is war to occur. I cannot expand further on that point, now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you would rule me out of order, but

if any hon. Member wants to develop it he should listen to the lectures of A. J. P. Taylor on how wars begin. They are most instructive.
The second fallacy of the hon. Member for Keighley was his claim that defence is and must be a first priority. At a superficial level that is true. However, what happens is that the more a country makes defence its first priority and pours money into it, the more is caused in political systems the very instability that causes war. Deterrents do not prevent war, as most people who, over many years, have thought about the causes of war will agree. Instability in power relationships is the cause of war.
When it comes to talking about what should be done if a major war occurs, Conservative Members start talking about civil defence, and get confused, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke became confused. He said that we should talk not about civil defence but about major disasters, and I go along with that. But like other of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member then fell into the trap of talking about civil defence in relation to nuclear war.
The problem is that to create a major programme of civil defence to deal with nuclear war a Government would have to raise the level of fear of nuclear war. The programme would have to ensure that virtually every citizen in the country knew how to cope with the early and later stages of radiation. People would have to know how to avoid radiation—how to avoid ingesting air, food or water that had been irradiated. They would have to know how long they had to stay out of certain areas and how long not to drink water in those areas.
Hon. Members must know that to conduct such a programme would raise the level of fear amongst the population. It is a fallacy to believe that a Government could run a sensible civil defence programme in preparation for nuclear war without raising the level of fear.
When the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) dismissed rather simplistically the arguments presented against civil defence, he fell into the trap of assuming that if we simply increase our civil defence aid a little we will in some way frighten the Russians. If the whole Western world raised expenditure and intensity of effort in relation to civil defence to a level that made the Soviets think we were planning to fight and survive a nuclear war, the deterrent theory becomes even less meaningful. One of my criticisms of the Soviet and Chinese policies, is that they did, and do in the case of the Soviet Union, plan to fight and survive a nuclear war. That shows the absurdity of the argument that Conservative Members get themselves into.
The hon. Member for Keighley did not have a stable, consistent definition of what he meant by deterrence. Later in his argument he said that one can show that one can survive a nuclear war. If one can do that, the nuclear weapon is no greater a deterrent than the conventional weapon. The nuclear weapon is only a big deterrent if its use is so dramatically effective that war will not be considered by any rational, sane person. The problem for both the western and eastern world is that that system worked tolerably well in the 1950s and 1960s, but the new war-fighting technology of the 1970s and 1980s has undermined that deterrent theory. Whether it is in the House, the Soviet Union, the United States or anywhere else, if the hon. Gentleman creates the impression that one can fight and win a nuclear war, the theory of deterrence in its original sense, or in terms of nuclear weapons, is meaningless. It becomes similar to the conventional


deterrent theory only when the effect of war is so overwhelming and devastating as to make the act of warfare irrational.
The other problem about that theory is that most wars do not break out in a rational way. As I have already said, the situation develops when political systems get out of control. In many ways I would feel much safer if I thought that President Reagan or Mr. Gorbachev were in control of the system. We kid ourselves about that—we really do. The history of great powers throughout the centuries, for example Britain, Rome classical Greece or Egypt, shows that there is an assumption that people are in control. In fact wars break out without the intention of a war. The classic example is the first world war. A great Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, said in the House that when war came, it would not be wanted by any of the major powers, but it came. Lord Grey could have taught Conservative Members far more about the nature of deterrence, the concept of defence and how wars break out than I can tonight.
There is a strong case for well co-ordinated, well resourced civil emergency planning. The Government have already undermined that by their abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and their replacement by boards, which, taking the words of Lord Whitelaw, will be difficult to make work effectively. They have further undermined that planning by having no coherent policy towards civil defence, but one that is confused between civil defence designed to deal with nuclear war, civil defence designed to cope with conventional war and civil defence designed to cope with emergency planning. Obviously one can overlap those three to some extent, but it is limited. That is a dangerous illusion. I share the view of several people inside and outside the House who think that if one leads people to believe that one can fight, win and survive a nuclear war, one increases the risks of such a war happening. Similarly, if one goes about it in such a way as to make one's opponent think that one is planning to win and survive a nuclear war, again, one increases the chances of it happening. The Government do not address themselves to that view.
There is another area that the Government do not address. It was interesting that only about two Conservative Members mentioned the nuclear winter. When they did, they mentioned it in such a way as to say that it is unproven. It came across to me that they do not want to believe that it is possible. I believe that it is probable. I certainly think that, once a nuclear war has broken out, it will be almost impossible to contain and that if we managed to contain it, that would be by luck rather than by an act of judgment. That is what makes it so profoundly dangerous and what has led so many people in the professions to say, having thought about the matter carefully, that it is not realistic to plan civil defence for the type of nuclear war that Conservative Members have talked about.
The British Medical Association is not a bunch of CND supporters. It is not known to comprise strong, card-carrying members of the Labour party. It might be among the group of whom the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead talked — well-spoken placemen of the Soviet Union—but I doubt it. It is a group of people which believes that it is not possible to plan effectively to deal with the consequences of nuclear war. It has said so 

clearly. Many scientists have said the same. Conservative Members, however, persist in talking about civil defence in the confused way that I have described, which suggests that they are clinging to concepts of the past. Another of the dangers of wars is that they tend to be fought on the assumptions of the previous war. Conservative Members are guilty of that serious misjudgment.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South rightly mentioned terrorists. The more weapons are available and the more they can be made and used, the greater is the likelihood of their being used. That is almost a mathematical fact, not just a statement on human behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is rightly worried about the terrorist threat and the threat of a minor Government having and using weapons of enormous potential. He must recognise that, as long as we continue to run the world on present assumptions. we are heading for every nation state having its own nuclear weapon to deter and every group in a state asking for a nuclear weapon to deter the other side. The greater the instability, the greater is the danger of that, and we need look no further than Lebanon to see it. There can be no civil defence in those circumstances.
I am not pretending that there is any simple solution. I do not believe that there is. Human beings have been too good at bashing each others' brains out for many thousands of years for me to give a simple solution from the Dispatch Box. The one lesson that comes over strongly from human history is that when we plan to fight wars, we tend to end up fighting them, and with the people we plan to fight. The more weapons are available, and the more that is spent on them, the greater the political instability and hence the greater the need for the authoritarian approach to national and international problems.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South would do well to dwell on what I have said in regard to what President Reagan has done with, I am sorry to say. the support of some Conservative Members, in Nicaragua. It is unacceptable to use terrorist methods. The mining of Nicaraguan harbours was an example of unacceptable behaviour and gave some Governments precisely the type of example that they are only too willing to follow. When the hon. Gentleman picks up clear statements by President Reagan against terrorism, he should put them in perspective and recognise that, when Western leaders such as President Reagan do such things, they feed the problem that they claim to oppose.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if we give up nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons this will disinvent them from a terrorist point of view? Is he saying that they will discard any knowledge that they have acquired? That is not my understanding of the argument. If terrorists have this knowledge they will use it.

Mr. Soley: It is not, and it never has been, part of my argument that terrorists would automatically give up such weapons. My argument is that as the political system gets out of control, the more we spend on arms, the more unstable the political system becomes. Consequently, the more the spread of arms, and information about them, the more they are likely to be used. History is on my side. We have to reverse that process without further destabilising a system that is already dangerously unstable. I could refer the hon. Member for Ilford, South to many other examples of the case I am putting forward. If he believes that he can


solve this problem by spending more money on arms and civil defence, he is not only under a dangerous illusion but he is feeding fires that he would not wish to burn.
It has been an interesting debate. It has told us a great deal about the attitude of the Conservative party. It is out of touch with the political changes that have taken place in the world. What is even more important, it is dangerously out of touch with technological change. This Government have quite cheerfully disrupted and undermined the civil emergency planning that is available to this country, not least by their abolition of the metropolitan counties, rate capping, targeting and other public expenditure cuts.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House will have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but it will have heard the same siren voice calling from the other side as it has heard on other occasions. That voice says that if we seek to make ourselves strong we encourage conflict and that therefore we should seek to get rid of defence and lie down in the unilateralist path. I hope that all Conservative Members reject that argument. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties in arriving at a theologically satisfactory position. He has managed to shelter behind the claim that the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council is the biggest disincentive to civil defence that this country has yet seen.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on introducing this debate. As he rightly said, this is a rare occasion. It is possibly even more rare that we should be debating civil defence issues in the early hours of the morning. I congratulate also my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate on their individual contributions.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues. I shall deal with two of them at once. He asked the Government to confirm that they will amend the Civil Defence Act 1948. My hon. Friend knows that this was a manifesto commitment. Although the Government have not yet succeeded in finding a vehicle for it, the objective must be to achieve that during the next Session of Parliament. By means of a private Member's Bill a very important contribution could be made towards securing a major Government policy objective. We would prefer to consider that route, and to review our position should we fail to achieve our aim during next Session. However, that remains our commitment.
All my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate mentioned the grant aid to local authorities to ensure that civil defence planning is taken seriously. I understand that the 75 per cent. grant, which is considerable in terms of local authority expenditure, is not regarded as sufficient. A 100 per cent. grant is available for amongst other items the purchase of capital equipment for communications networks and centres. The grant aids available have not been in position for long, and we have not yet decided to review the 100 per cent. grant. But the pressure has been consistent, and was continued in the campaign recently launched by the National Council on Civil Defence, so I am bound to take it seriously. We should not close our minds to reviewing this matter in the light of the progress that we wish to make. I hope that I can convince my hon. Friends that, such is the extent of progress that we wish 

to make, if it should be shown that grant aid is a serious impediment to the pursuit of that progress, we shall consider the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked about monitoring and reporting on local authority performance. I agree that we should do that, and I shall make arrangements to provide regular reports to the House on how local authorities proceed. My hon. Friend may recall that some answers have already been given on this matter, and I undertake to provide such information as we proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) urged full central funding, with which I have already dealt, and also introduced the concept of civil defence or civil emergency planning. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not simply a change in nomenclature, but a change in policy. To start widening the concept of civil defence to include civil emergencies or emergency planning is a genuine attempt to recognise that, in today's world, that is probably a more effective way of describing the protection of the population, which is a duty of Government. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I hope that we can offer—in our all-hazards approach—a reasonable answer to his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) argued for a volunteer force. This is always an important factor in any major movement, and it is an aspect of preparation that makes Britain the envy of the world. My hon. Friend will be aware that about 13,000 people are involved as community volunteers, which is not a bad figure. In addition, we must remember the 11,000 people involved in the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, which is probably the most effective organisation of its sort anywhere in Europe. This is a large cadre of people who give their time to preparing Britain for times of potential difficulty and conflict. However, I accept that we must find a way of ensuring that we have a corps of trained volunteers, and the local authority provision in the civil defence regulations will encourage this. I take on board my hon. Friend's commitment to the volunteer component of our civil defence plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) mentioned the civil disasters that have occurred, despite the fact that, for a considerable time, the western world has been at peace. He is right. The disasters in Bhopal, Seveso and Flixborough have reminded us, if we needed reminding, of the vulnerability of civil populations to major industrial or natural disasters. Again, this adds weight to his view that it is time to broaden the preparation for civil defence to include preparation for such civil emergencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said that there should be better co-ordination with other Departments, and I accept that. The Home Office is the prime sponsor for civil defence, but almost every other Department is involved in emergency planning. Arrangements need to be made for matters such as fuel and emergency supplies, housing, environmental issues, health, food and so on. In the past, I agree that these things have tended to develop piecemeal, with emergency planning representing just one of the vast multitude of activities undertaken by each Department. Recently, we have taken two important initiatives. Centrally, we are developing a fully co-ordinated plan


embracing all Departments, which will improve the effectiveness of our planning and enable us to pursue a balanced plan across Government as a whole.
Secondly, at regional level, we have started a pilot study that, over the next 18 months or so, will explore the scope for improving regional co-ordination of civil defence by all the agencies and services of Government and local government that have a part to play. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the assurance that not only do I accept what he says, but I have acted upon it, and will ensure better co-ordination of our policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) gave us, as he is always wont to do, a robust, full, tour d'horizon of the civil defence scene. He asked that we should commit ourselves to an all-hazards approach, and I accept that we should do so. He also referred to the 100 per cent. funding and the amendment of the 1948 Act. He spoke about Manpower Watch and extracting civil defence figures from that. In our examination of local authorities' performance, and in our monitoring, we shall be looking closely at the manpower figures as well as at the fulfilment of the regulations laid upon the authorities. I shall then bear in mind what he wished us to do.
My hon. Friend also spoke about terrorism. I understand the anxiety that he and the National Council for Civil Defence have about the terrorist threat. We are well aware of that threat in this country, and as my hon. Friend will recognise, we have an important role to play in counter-terrorism. I accept that in any civil emergency on any scale, the civil defence services will have a part to play, but if he is suggesting that civil defence has a role to play in counter-terrorism, I beg to differ. He must recognise that the Government's anti-terrorism policies are essentially covert and skilful and are not determined by large groups of people who are trained, albeit in a relatively small number of activities, to a reasonably high extent. We are dealing with a highly-skilled international threat, and something that requires a highly sensitive and sophisticated response. In that aspect of terrorism, I would not expect a civil defence body to play much part although I understand his point of view.
The threat of war and our foreign and defence policies are our starting point. Those policies and our membership of defensive alliances such as NATO, our participation in its policy of deterrence, and our determined effort with our allies to reach agreement on arms reduction and multilateral disarmament have been instrumental in giving us 40 years of peace in Europe. We have every reason to believe that this will continue. That is the fundamental background that allows us to review civil defence planning and to discuss it in a different context.
I should make it quite plain that we do not consider that war in Europe is at all probable, let alone inevitable. But I should also make it plain that it would be quite irresponsible to neglect entirely the remote possibility that war might come and that we might suffer attack. Civil defence must be seen in that light. It is a humanitarian and commonsense effort to reduce suffering and loss of life, and to enable the recovery of our country if such an attack should occur, whatever the twists and turns of contrary arguments offered. My hon. Friends have urged upon me the view that we should redefine our objectives in terms of civil emergencies, but we must keep in mind the need to prepare for certain emergencies, which may be military 

in character. Many detractors seek to cloud the issue, but the simple fact remains that if there is a threat and the realisation of that threat would bring disaster, it is our clear duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the likely effects.
When we took office in 1979, civil defence was still on a care and maintenance basis. Despite the difficult economic circumstance we inherited then, and the constraints on our economy now, we are today spending twice as much in real terms on civil defence as was being spent in 1980. Moreover, despite the continuing need to maintain control over public expenditure, we intend to pursue the planned provisions for civil defence over the next three years.
Let me turn to how this Government's commitment to civil defence has been realised. If this country was ever to come under attack, a warning of that attack, even if it was very short, could make a considerable difference to the number of survivors. Hence the importance of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation. That organisation is near to the completion of a substantial programme of improvement. It stands ready to warn of an attack and to monitor and disseminate information on the effects of hostilities. Its state of readiness is probably better than any other such organisation in any other country in the world. Even now we are giving consideration to how this efficient organisation could be adapted to deal with the needs of detection, warning and monitoring against the possibility of the chemical threat, which figures in our present planning assumptions.

Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if emergencies do arise in the form of a war, it is vital for the civilian and military sides to work in close cooperation? I have always said that the military should be in charge. If it is in charge, close co-operation, especially in communications, must take place.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will recognise that in a war, there will be a high military component to civil defence. But in the planning we seek to establish now, what we are concerned with, and what on reflection perhaps my hon. Friend will agree we should be concerned with, is to supply a civil organisation based upon the local regions of this country and essentially through a regional authority structure. That is the basis of the present planning and the present commitment. Even now we are considering how this organisation could be adapted to deal with other threats.
Just when we needed the most effective direction of coordination of effort, communications would be at their weakest. For a time it would therefore be either difficult or impossible to sustain central control of essential functions. Plans for wartime decentralisation of Government are therefore a necessary part of our policy and we have recently overhauled and improved them.
We have an emergency communications network whose purpose is to support arrangements for decentralising Government so as to ensure that those in need could be helped as quickly as possible, and that the effort available is co-ordinated and directed in the most effective way. That network, vital to our emergency arrangements, is well into a substantial programme of modernisation which will further help to pull together all our plans and resources in time of need.
I have already stressed co-ordination within Whitehall in commenting upon the contribution by my hon. Friend


the Member for Dulwich. Co-ordination of planning, a feature of our central and regional initiatives in civil defence, is also a crucial factor at local authority level.
In that context, I come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. When the abolition Bill was proceeding, we took the view that the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties should result in civil defence functions being placed with the new joint fire boards. That is another illustration of how they should be working alongside a civil emergency procedure, which the fire services clearly are. We agreed to amend the Bill to ensure the same provision was made for the metropolitan counties.
Over the last few years, we have gradually extended our base for research and development into civil defence and we have developed an effective R and D programme.
A number of my hon. Friends mentioned public relations activity. I should mention our preparations for a new information booklet for the public and for a civil defence film—all material which we hope will set the record straight and do much to counter the misleading propaganda so beloved of Opposition hon. Gentlemen.

Ms. Clare Short: What about the hon. Ladies?

Mr. Shaw: Indeed, there are hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who prefer misleading information.
The Government are not confused by spurious and misguided arguments against the straightforward humanitarian case for protection of the public in time of emergency; we are getting on with the job. If the time should ever come when the plans needed to be put into operation, the case for civil defence will be crystal clear to all—even to those who now profess to doubt.
Let me outline the progress in civil defence preparedness by our local authorities. Last month we issued comprehensive emergency planning guidance to local authorities. It was a consolidation and revision of existing guidance and is designed to help local authorities to fulfil their humanitarian duty to prepare for the protection and survival of people in their area. It sets out the expanded planning assumptions, first issued in 1984, which in particular emphasise the possibility of conventional attack.
The former prominence of a nuclear attack in our planning assumptions has receded, and the guidance makes it clear that planning against conventional attack and planning flexibly are essential. That is an important part of the anxieties expressed by a number of my hon. Friends about how local authorities will get on with the job.
I accept that we need not only to monitor activity and to lay information before the House but to persuade local authorities to take their statutory obligations seriously. If they do not do so, the Government have powers to act and will use them if it is found that local authorities are failing to implement the 1983 regulations. The Government introduced the regulations, which lay statutory obligations on local authorities. They are required to make and to keep up to date plans for the protection of the people in time of war, to make plans for the use of buildings as public shelters, to plan for the accommodation of the homeless, to make arrangements for emergency feeding, to make plans for the recruitment and training of the many people who wish to volunteer their services in time of need—in

short, they have to provide and maintain the services essential to the life of the community in time of tension and in war. The emergency planning guidance has been restructured to reflect those statutory responsibilities and to assist local authorities in their implementation.
Civil defence is a partnership between central and local government. That is what we must build on, by working together to improve our preparedness. The majority of local authorities recognise both their humanitarian and their statutory duties in civil defence.
We are determined that all local authorities shall meet their obligations. They have been asked to complete their plans by the end of the year and we intend to take stock of the situation at that point. We have made it clear that while we intend to proceed by reason and persuasion we shall hold in reserve the use of formal directions and the default powers available to us, and we shall not hesitate to use them if necessary.
We do not expect local authorities to go it alone. We have made available guidance and plans for them to do their job and we shall continue the existing rates of grant aid for civil defence expenditure. I have already said that we may wish to review that matter if we are unable to persuade local authorities to proceed on the present basis.
We have heard much about the need to plan for peacetime emergencies. Indeed, I accepted at the outset the importance of the all-hazards approach. We have Long recognised that many of the problems faced locally in planning to alleviate the effects of war are the same in kind, if not in scale, as those in peacetime emergencies. The recent debate in another place called attention to the duty of the Government and local authorities to deal with peacetime emergencies and to provide civil defence in case of conventional, chemical or nuclear attack. There was widespread support on all sides of the House for planning against war and peacetime emergencies. No one argued that there were not similarities in the planning required, that they were not required, or that one should be undertaken without the other.
It was in recognition of this argument that our election manifesto committed us to legislate to allow civil defence resources to be used by local authorities to meet peacetime emergencies. Hence the importance of the amendment to the 1948 legislation, which will be a statutory expression of the Government's recognition that we should be prepared for any kind of disaster, be it military or civil.
As we see civil defence now, I recognise that the time is right to bring the all-hazards aspect of emergency planning to the fore. There is much that can be achieved by this approach. We need, as a matter of Government policy, to be committed to the premise that an all-hazards broadly based approach to civil defence is now the way to go forward.
The Government have raised the level of civil defence preparedness, and it is our firm intention that the performance will be maintained. We have done much in recent years to develop the co-ordination and planning of central Government. We have done much to encourage and guide the local authorities to play their vital part. We have made available the guidance and resources that they need to do their job. We have done much to modernise our civil defence facilities, when this has seemed necessary, and we are giving consideration to extending them where this might be of benefit. That, as I trust my hon. Friends will recognise, is a very good record of achievement, but there is much to be done centrally and locally. We intend


to take what measures are necessary to ensure that the momentum which we have generated on civil defence is not lost. We are committed to civil defence in peace or war as a policy to provide a humanitarian response to all emergencies, military and civil, which may threaten our people. That is a prime duty of Government, and only a Conservative Government will deliver it.

Orders of the Day — Wages Councils

Mr. Dave Nellist: Later today, Thursday 25 July, the Tory Government will communicate to the International Labour Organisation the instrument of denunciation of ILO convention No. 26. Hidden in that coded medieval language, which characterises much of the workings of this place, is an insolent attack, a malevolent and spiteful class attack, on some of the poorest paid workers in Britain today. In particular, by 25 July 1986, one year from today, the Tory Government intend to remove from the inadequate legal protection of the wages councils 500,000 young workers under the age of 21, as well as making cuts in other legal minimum employment protection for adult workers. The political attitudes and intentions behind that announcement, and the effect which it would have, if brought about, I shall deal with later.
The debate, although it takes place at 4 o'clock in the morning, could not begin without a mention of how and when that announcement was made. On Monday 15 July, Tory Members of Parliament were falling over themselves, as were Cabinet Ministers, to bask in the reflected glory of the generosity of people following the Live Aid concert the previous Saturday, when a reported £50 million was raised for famine relief in Africa. Let us leave aside the hypocrisy of a Government who have cut aid in real terms, run down industries such as the bus and truck plants at Bathgate and elsewhere which, in a sane society, could have provided crucial transport, and who have co-operated in the stockpiling of massive food mountains in Coventry and throughout the country when a quarter of the world's population is hungry. Even leaving that aside, for the Government to laud the efforts of young people one weekend and, three days later, on Wednesday 17 July, to attack many of those same young people would be breathtaking if we had not understood the real nature of this capitalist Government by their actions in the previous six years.
Twenty-four hours later, on Thursday, after saying that young workers on wages as low as £29·70 per week were pricing themselves out of jobs, the Government offered the generals, the judges and the top civil servants, whose wages were already 20 or 25 times that received by young workers, an increase of 30, 40 and 50 per cent. to give them an incentive—rises which, in the words of the Prime Minister,
can be regarded not only by themselves but also by Parliament and the public as fair but not generous".—[Official Report, 18 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 219.]
Although £500 a week for Sir Robert Armstrong may not be generous in his terms or those of the Government, fair is not the word that young people have used for such a rise.
The announcement on 17 July stated that the Government intended to remove all under-21s from the legal protection of minimum wages. The Government often quote in this House examples from abroad. It is worth pointing out that if that denunciation takes place later today, Britain will be the only industrialised country in the world without legal minimum wages for young workers.
During previous debates and at Question Time Labour Members have been told, "Look to Europe." I asked the Secretary of State this week to cite examples. He referred me to a document in the Library, the most recent version


of which was 1983. I picked the nearest and most comparable European countries to see whether young workers in Europe are so much more badly paid than young workers in Britain that the Government's need to drive down their wages had any validity. The figures were for December 1983. In France, the minimum wage for a 16-year old was £60 per week, for a 17-year old it was £66·40 and for an 18-year old and over £74. In Luxembourg, at 16 it was £52; at 17, £60; at 18 and over £74·40. Skilled workers receive 20 per cent. higher rates. In Holland it started a little lower at 16—£36·57. At 17 it was £41·87; at 18 £48; at 21, £76.
It is interesting to note the enforcement of those minimum wage rates for young people in European countries. In France it stretches from fines on employers of £100 to £250 per worker found underpaid to a point where if that is repeated within a year of the infringement the fines rise to £500 per worker and 10 days' imprisonment for the employer. Those are the examples the Secretary of State told me to look at in the Library to prove his point that young workers in Europe were getting far less than young workers in Britain. The truth is the opposite.
The Government's claim that removing the protection of young workers' wages would reduce unemployment was never the intention. For the past six years the Government have used mass unemployment to cow the trade union movement into some form of submission, to drive down the wages, both directly and indirectly, of working people, purely to raise the rates of profit for the employers and industrialists that the Tory party represents in Parliament. In particular, they have sought to put into the bank balances of a few tens of thousands of the superrich shareholers the wealth that has and will be stolen from workers, especially young workers.
Unemployment in this country has nothing to do with the wage rates paid to workers. It is certainly not, as Tory Members and Ministers try to portray, the fault of workers on £30 or £50 a week. It is worth noting the wage rates for under-21s. The lowest rate paid to a 16-year-old under the wages councils is £29·71. It would not pay for a "decent" meal for one or two Tory Members of Parliament. The lowest wage for a 17-year-old is £34·11. That would not cover a week's gin and tonics for some hon. Members. For 18-year-olds it is £37·50, and the lowest adult rate is £47·50.
I have in front of me the rates for the largest industries covered by wages councils. For clothing, it is £59 for under 18-year olds —£41 at 16. For hairdressing it is £31·75 for first-year apprentices. The highest minimum wage is £68·50 for a worker after two years of training. For hotels, the wage is £55, or £69 for those over 18. For licensed premises which are residential, the wage is £44·16 for a 17-year-old, going up to £52, with £72 being the highest minimum rate of pay. For shops, the rate is £47 a week, £45 for non-food shops. The lowest rate, in the toy manufacturing industry, is £29·71 a week. Yet the Tories are trying to tell working people that those rates must be driven even lower if youth unemployment is to be reduced.
Why has employment not gone up in Britain, particularly in the last six years? The one most important reason is that there has been a deliberate refusal by employers and industrialists to invest, particularly in manufacturing industry. According to leading British banks, there is now an estimated gap, which needs to be 

bridged by new investment, between Britain and the major countries of the Common Market, Japan and America of £200 billion. That must be applied to manufacturing investment if we are to catch up with the productivity levels and competitiveness of those advanced capitalist countries.
That is 35 or 40 times as much as is invested in manufacturing industry in any one year in Britain. That is why British industry does not produce goods as quickly and as cheaply as its competitors. It has nothing to do with wages in hairdressing, hotels, shops, clothing or catering. The fault lies in the fact that under the Tories manufacturing investment has fallen. We have even reached the stage when for every £1 of a machine that wears out, only 84p of a new machine is put in its place.
The action of those who take the profits and run rather than reinvest in manufacturing industry has meant that for the first time in 400 years, Britain is importing more factory-made goods than it exports. From being the workshop of the world, this country is becoming the warehouse of the world as cookers, fridges, washing machines, TVs, cars—the products of whole sections of industry—are imported. The rate of those imports is at or over 50 per cent. of sales in Britain.
That lack of investment has nothing to do with a lack of money in Britain. Since the Tories lifted exchange controls, employers and industrialists have sent their money abroad. About £50 billion has gone to South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and other countries where, in the main, wage rates are kept low, often by military dictatorships through the barrel of a gun.
Perhaps the yardstick that Cabinet Ministers have for working people in this country is to reduce wage rates to what they determine Third world countries such as Bangladesh have already established. That is the impression that anyone would have from reading the reports of the Government's advisers. For example, when Sir John Hoskins, who now runs the Institute of Directors, was adviser to the Prime Minister, he wrote four years ago a paper that led to the establishment of the youth training scheme.
His aim for the scheme has been to increase the differential between the wages of young people and adults, and we know what has happened as a result of that aim. If the allowances for youngsters on YTS courses had gone up since April 1978 by the rate of inflation or in line with wage rates generally, they should be receiving £40 a week. Instead, they are getting £26·25. That is the bench mark that the Government have in mind for the abolition of wage protection. Their aim is to drive down wages to supplementary benefit and YTS levels.
Their argument is that that will create jobs. Where is the evidence to substantiate that claim? In the last five years, according to information supplied to me by the Department of Employment, young people's wages relative to adult wages have fallen by 12 per cent. for boys and 13 per cent. for girls, and during the same period youth unemployment has trebled. It is clear that driving down young people's wages has not increased their employment prospects.
Wages councils cover almost 3 million workers and about 90 per cent. of them work in the councils' major industries, such as hairdressing, catering, shops, clothing and hotels. They are part of an army of 9 million low-paid workers. Wages council industries offer average adult wages of £60–£70 and £40–£50 to most young workers.
The councils were established at the turn of the century in New Zealand, and in Britain in 1909, and their influence was extended during the 1920s. They were seen then, as they are seen by many employers now, as a tool to prevent or settle industrial disputes and to head off trade union organisation. Two or three months ago, the CBI—this was reflected in an editorial in the Financial Times—advanced that reason in explaining why it was not in favour of the abolition of the councils. It fears that the next Labour Government will institute a national minimum wage and that trade unions will move into the old wages council areas and recruit.
In the next 12 months before the wages councils are subject to changes, I hope that working people, through the trade unions, the Labour party and organisations such as the youth trade union rights campaign, will turn the CBI's nightmare into a reality.
I do not intend to spend the summer during the parliamentary recess on holiday, on lecture tours or writing books. Instead, I shall endeavour to identify each and every young worker in Coventry who will lose the minimum legal protection of the wages councils if they are abolished in a year's time. I shall make sure that the appropriate trade unions recruit them, such as USDAW, the TGWU and GMBATU. The youth trade union rights campaign can play a similar role nationally. In the past four years we know that thousands on the YOP and YTS schemes have joined trade unions because of our campaigns and those of trade unions.
Ministers say that although it was all right to set up wages councils in the 1920s to deal with "sweating"—the payment of extremely low wages—they are not appropriate in the 1980s. We are moving towards "sweating", but there are 8,000 millionaires in Britain, twice the number that existed when the Government took office. Over 1 million people earn more than £20,000 a year, but there are 9 million who are low-paid. Members of Parliament are on a minimum of £300 a week and many Tories have a few other jobs—some have 10 or 15 other jobs. Cabinet Ministers are on £400 or £500. How can they understand what it is like trying to eke out £40 or £50 a week?
Workers deserve decent minimum rates of pay. That is what I have tried in this Session to introduce a couple of Private Members Bills on minimum wages and conditions. In one Bill I sought to set a national minimum wage, in line with TUC and Labour party policy, of £115 for a 35-hour week with a guaranteed minimum rate of 75 per cent. for 16 year-olds and 85 per cent. for 17 year-olds. It sought minima in other areas — for example, five weeks' holiday and an hourly rate of £3·28 to protect part-timers. I sought to introduce a private Member's Bill on working conditions for Government trainees. Its purpose was to introduce trade union rates of pay and organisation rights to Government training schemes, with a minimum payment of £55 a week. Of course, Tory Members argue that such a measure would price young workers out of jobs.
I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that if only we could have a 1 per cent. fall in wage rates, 150,000 new jobs could be created. Where is the evidence for that? Over the past 10 years, wages council rates as a percentage of average wages have fallen from 73 per cent. to 65 per cent., yet unemployment has rocketed. If it is true that 

high wages cause unemployment, why is there no condemnation from the Treasury Bench of the wages of Riachard Giordano, the highest paid director in Britain, who is on £13,000 a week as the managing director of British Oxygen? Why is there no condemnation of the pay rises of generals, judges and high-ranking civil servants over the past week? Why is there no condemnation of the bank chiefs? The head of Barclays is on £132,000 a year while the heads of Lloyds, the Midland and the Nat-West are on £113,000, £84,000 and £105,000 respectively. Why is there no condemnation of the top 100 directors who, between 1981 and 1983, took pay rises of 61 per cent.? Why is there no condemnation of the average chief executives who, according to The Guardian yesterday, have average wages of £55,000 a year— an 11·5 per cent. increase on last year? We are told that 95 per cent. of board members get company cars, that the company bears the maintenance costs of those cars for 98 per cent. of board members, that 73 per cent. of board members receive loans at preferential interest rates for house purchases, that three quarters receive free medical insurance and that 61 per cent. get free or subsidised lunches. There is no condemnation of those people that their high wages cause unemployment.
Why do not Tory Members of Parliament explain what it is like to be at the bottom of the pile in regions like the west midlands? According to a report published four or five weeks ago by the West Midlands Low Pay Unit,
Sexual harassment, verbal abuse, unpaid overtime, dirty conditions and wages as low as 48p an hour have been uncovered by an investigation into the plight of working teenagers in the Midlands.
A girl machinist, aged 16, complained that female staff were left in no doubt how they could find an extra £10 in their pay packet by an employer who regularly tried to touch her breast; a clerk typist, aged 19, received £25 for a 49-hour week; an employee, aged 18, with 11 0 levels, earned just £32·25 a week, while a young roofer was paid £6 for 12½ hours' overtime.
Other youngsters spoke of spider-infested lavatories, no meal breaks, and getting annual holiday entitlements of 10 days after two years' service.
I appreciate the fact that many of the examples in the report do not concern industries that were covered by wages council legislation. Unfortunately, for hundreds of thousands of young workers, that is the reality of the low-wage, ice cream economy which the Tory Government are attempting to introduce.
The abolition of wages council protection for the under 21-year-olds will do nothing to increase the number of jobs. The Under-Secretary of State may trawl up the favourite quote of Ministers in these debates from a pamphlet written by Henry Neuberger for the Low Pay Unit. He said that the Treasury computer estimated that the total abolition of the wages councils could create 8,000 jobs in five years. What does that mean? It means 16 jobs per constituency when the average level of official unemployment is 5,000 per constituency. That is 64 jobs in Coventry. In the last week of June 1985, there were 1,000 redundancies in Coventry. We know that 17,000 people have not had a job for more than a year and that 10,000 of them have not worked for between two and five years. According to the Chancellor, we are supposed to be in the fifth successive year of economic growth. Half a million of the 1·5 million young people out of work have not had a job since leaving school.
The last "great scheme" that the Tory Government introduced to reduce unemployment was the young workers scheme, which gave a direct subsidy to employers


to reduce wages. An analysis of that scheme by a House Committee showed that three quarters of the jobs covered by that scheme were already there and that 80 per cent. of the additional jobs were jobs taken from adults to be given to young people.
That is what the abolition of the wages councils will be like. It will be about fiddling the figures, because that is the only solution that the Government come up with to reduce unemployment. They say, "Switch the unemployment among the age groups. Forget about the over-55s; they will not get a job anyway. They do not matter. Forget about most young people when they are leaving school. Just alter the statistics, either on a geographical or an age basis." That is the redefinition of unemployment that the Government come up with.
Just because I oppose the abolition of the protection of the wages councils for the under 21-year-olds, that does not mean that I am merely in favour of the retention of existing powers. I favour a campaign by the trade unions to which I referred—including the TGWU, USDAW and GMBATU—to recruit workers to the movement. Wages councils are by no means perfect. What minimal protection they have provided has been consciously obstructed over the past five or six years by the Tory Government.
Wages councils' inspections have decreased since 1979 from about 50,000 to fewer than 40,000. A quarter of inspections showed underpayment. Are there many prosecutions? Starting in 1981, the prosecutions for the past four years were eight, seven, two and two. Although there were about 9,000 illegal underpayers in 1984, there were only two prosecutions. The average fines for infringement of the wages councils' orders decreased from £466 in 1981 to £107 for the two prosecutions in 1984.
The Conservative party is supposed to stand for law and order. When it finds 9,000 employers evading the law, does it sharpen the law, increase inspectors' powers, or ensure that the law is obeyed? No, because its business friends are involved. It alters the law to let them off the hook. During the past five years the Government have cut the wages councils' budgets by £2·5 milion in real terms, that is a 36 per cent. cut. They have cut the number of ors inspectors from 158 in 1979 to 115 in 1984. Whereas in 1979 every establishment covered by a wages council order expected to be visited on average once in seven years five months, now it is once in nine years three months. In the west midlands it is once in 12 years six months. The Government have cut the number of inspectors, and even the number of miles that they are allowed to travel. All that is to let the Government's business friends off the hook.
At the beginning of the week I asked the Secretary of State some questions to provide information for the debate. I have already used some of the facts. I sought information on his statement last week to clarify some of his points. I asked how many young workers would be affected by the announcement. If the Department of Employment thought that there would be more jobs, it could at least have identified through wages councils the number of youngsters that would be affected. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), replied,
This information is not available.
I asked him to estimate the costs to businesses of complying with the wages council's orders. It is said to be expensive for them to comply. He answered
It is not possible to make such an estimate.

I asked him to give the average level of wages of young people by region, the level of unemployment of young people by region, and whether the Department could prove that where young people received higher wages there was also higher unemployment, but that information was not available. I suggest that it is available. All the Minister must do, as I found out today, is to look in the Central Statistical Office's regional trends document, where he will find that the lowest wage areas, such as the north of England, the west midlands, northern Ireland and Wales, have the highest level of youth unemployment.
I asked the Minister how many jobs he expected to be created by the proposal, and he replied
We expect the reforms to create employment opportunities, but there are obvious difficulties in forecasting the number which will eventually be created.
The obvious difficulty is that the number cannot be forecast because the measure will not create new jobs.
On 17 July the Secretary of State specifically said that in a number of cases he could name the individual young people who had had to be sacked when their employers discovered what the minimum legal wages were. I asked the Minister to give examples of those cases, and he replied
A number of such cases have been referred to in responses to the consultative paper, letters to Ministers and reports from wages inspectors.
He ducked the question and did not provide the examples that the Secretary of State promised.
Abolition of the wages councils for the under-21s is a deliberate, calculated attack on young workers who see no future under this Tory Government in a capitalist system. This summer, just over 500,000 youngsters left school—517,000 to be precise — and they chase 12,355 vacancies at the careers offices. In England, the odds against getting a job at a careers office is 37 to 1; in Wales, 129 to 1: and in Scotland, 144 to 1. At the beginning of June, 46 per cent. of all careers offices had 10 or fewer vacancies in England. In Scotland the figure was 94 per cent., and in Wales it was 95 per cent.
A total of 51 careers offices did not have one vacancy on offer for young people in their areas, and another 36 had only one vacancy on offer. That is the reality of mass unemployment for young people in a Tory Britain. Abolition of the wages councils' legal provision of the maintenance of wages for the under-21s will not provide jobs for them. That will be done only by a Socialist Labour Government who take control of the economy and plan it in a rational way.
That can be done by sharing out what work is available; through shortening the working week to 35 hours, which could create 1·5 million jobs; through lowering the retirement age; and by bringing together the needs of working people with those whose skills are lying idle on the dole under this Tory Government.
By bringing together the needs of the 6 million people at present living in damp houses and the skills of 400,000 building workers who are denied the chance to build houses, and through the public ownership of construction and finance companies, it would be possible for a Labour Government to build 1 million houses a year. That would provide genuine training and apprenticeships for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of young school leavers.
The Socialists and Marxists in the Labour party are often called the wreckers in society. But this Tory Government are the real Luddites of the 20th century. They have destroyed numerous steel and car plants and


engineering facilities; and they have denied the chance of decent jobs to school leavers and young people. Their type of society cannot use the production that those plants generate. Their type of society wastes 30 per cent. of industrial capacity in Britain today and condemns 20 per cent. of the working population to unemployment. Their type of society puts 9 million people on low pay and 9·7 million people in a position in which they cannot afford a week's holiday away from home without staying with relatives. Millions more rely on supplementary benefit.
Their type of Government and society has turned the city of Coventry from the richest working class city in Britain 15 years ago to a city where, this month, 50 per cent. of the population must rely on state benefits. Today they are saying to hundreds of young workers in Coventry and to 500,000 young workers throughout the country that their wages of £40 to £50 a week are too high in Maggie's Britain of 1985.
Despite this debate being held at 4 o'clock in the morning, I use this time to issue a warning to the Government. Their attacks on young people, their cuts in supplementary and housing benefits, their use of YTS as industrial conscription, and their attempts to create a cheap labour, ice cream economy in Britain in 1985 will produce a new generation of Socialist class fighters.
In April this year, 250,000 15 and 16-year-old school students went on a half-day strike against the plans for compulsory YTS. Out of their ranks will come not only the new Labour voters of the next general election but the new shop stewards and union organisers of the 1980s and 1990s. They have been steeled in the harshness of Tory economic reality, and understand that the only language which this Government and the employers who back them respect is the language of industrial muscle and struggle.
Young people can see the divisions in the Tory party which we have experienced in the last day or two. They realise the desperate nature of a Government prepared to spend £6,000 million to try to crush the NUM. They watch an insane Government spending billions of pounds on useless weapons of mass destruction, on tax cuts to the super rich, and on stockpiles of food while hundreds of millions go hungry in various parts of the world.
British society over the next 10 or 15 years is approaching a crossroads, where genuine democratic Socialism will be posed as a realistic alternative to this form of government. When that happens the attempts to abolish the protection—the minimal protection—of young workers under the age of 21 of the existing wages councils orders will be seen in retrospect as one of the nails not only in the coffin of this Government but also of Conservatism, monetarism, and capitalism.

Ms. Clare Short: Despite the lateness of the hour, I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's proposals announced recently seriously to undermine and weaken further the wages councils that provide some protection to some of the lowest paid workers in the country. The Government's announcement, on 17 July, on the future of wages councils was publicised in a rather limited way. The impression given in publicity around the country was that young workers were the only group to suffer as a consequence of this announcement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made clear, young workers will suffer significantly, but they will not be the only ones to suffer, as I shall show. The Minister and the Government must have been very pleased that, amongst others they sought to mislead about their intentions, can be included whoever writes the leader of The Guardian. There was an extraordinary leader on this matter suggesting that the Government's climb-down on the wages council issue showed a new outbreak of consensus politics by the Government and a new form of Thatcherism. Indeed, the leader suggested that all reasonable people agreed that young people should be exempted from the protection of the wages councils. That is an amazing assertion. Also it did not seem to recognise that the Government's intention is to weaken further the protection the wages councils afford to adult workers.
Of course, not only are the young people who are currently protected to be undermined, but the definition of young people is to be extended to 21 years from the 18 years that normally applies now. Thus, a larger group will be included in the definition.
Beyond that, there is a planned significant weakening in the protection of adults. For example, in future, there will be no protection for adult workers in wages council industries in relation to their holidays; there will be no protection for piece rate workers. In my old constituency of Ladywood—and this is typical of many areas in the West Midlands—we have had a very rapid growth in textile sweat-shops employing significant numbers of Asian women workers at extraordinarily low rates of pay, almost all of whom are paid at piece rates and work in real Victorian sweat-shop conditions. Of course, the Government's announcement means that all of those who are currently protected by the provisions of wages councils will lose that protection.
There will be no protection for shift workers and no guaranteed minimum rate, so that workers can be sent home on any day at any time wthout any guaranteed minimum income in the week. There will be no differentials for skilled workers.
Therefore, this attack announced by the Government on 17 July is not just an attack on young workers, serious as that is. It is an attack on all people in this country who are currently protected by wages councils. The Guardian leader writer should really look more seriously at what the Government actually announced. All of this is only part of a further unfolding of the strategy that has been operating since 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East made perfectly clear, the Government have adopted policies that have deliberately increased unemployment in order to restructure the labour market. They have also aimed to cut taxes for the rich and those on high levels of income, and to increase their income, the latest example of which we argued about only yesterday.
The Government tell us that somehow the well off will work harder only if they are paid more and taxed less, and those on low incomes will work harder only if they are taxed more and paid less. That is a paradox. The Government's philosophy since 1979 is that our economy will be more efficient if the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, we shall all work harder and have more incentives, so somehow greater wealth will be created. Here we are six years later and our economy is devastated, and those of us who represent constituencies in the west


midlands see it before our eyes every day of the week as the closure of factories spreads throughout our region. It is clear that apart from the unacceptable nature of the Government's policy in terms of social justice, it is not working economically either.
However, the Government have been successful in their aims in bringing about the restructuring of the labour market. For example, the proportion of male manual workers earning less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold has doubled since 1979 from one in 10 to one in five. The proportion of manual women workers earning less than poverty wages is up from two in three to four in five over the same period. The number of families forced to rely on family income suplement to top up their low wages has trebled since 1979. In total in Britain today some 8 million adult workers—one third of the entire adult work force—now earn low wages, but the figure excludes young people, homeworkers and many people working in small firms who do not show up in the official statistics.
The overall result—and this is the success of the Government's strategy so far — has been a dramatic widening in inequalities. According to recently published Treasury figures, the highest paid males have enjoyed increases in their real net pay 10 times as large as those enjoyed by the poorest. As the Financial Times commented on 31 May 1985,
The Government has frequently given real wage increases as one of the causes for high unemployment, and argued that lower pay was needed to price people back into jobs. However, the figures show that real take home pay of the poorest single workers fell by nearly six per cent. in the three years to April 1982, the period during which unemployment was rising most rapidly.
Therefore, the Government have been enormously successful in their aim. Up to now they have managed massively to cut the income of the lowest paid and increase that of the highest paid. They now wish to go further down that road. They are currently using two instruments to attack low-paid workers. The first, privatisation, attacks low-paid workers in the public sector. The whole point of privatisation is to offer lower wages than those currently available to workers in the public sector by requiring them to reapply for their jobs at lower rates. That is proceeding quite effectively and cleverly around the land. The second instrument attacks workers in the private sector who are currently protected by wages councils. Those are the measures that the Government announced on 17 July.
In order to achieve that disreputable aim, the Government have been required to denounce the International Labour Organisation convention. They gave notice recently of their intention to do so. The original constitution of the ILO, of which the United Kingdom was a founder member, included
the provision of an adequate living wage
among its objectives. Member states agree to seek to ensure
the payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
ILO convention 26, which i requires signatory Governments to maintain minimum wage machinery to protect the most vulnerable workers
has become one of the most widely accepted instruments of the ILO.
As the Institute of Personnel Management recently noted:
No country which has ratified Convention No. 26 has denounced it. The Government's denunciation of the Convention 

will, as the Confederation of British Industry commented last year, embarrass the UK internationally, particularly in the context of penalising competition from less developed countries on the grounds that they are sweatshop labour.
The Government have already faced some international embarrassment. The ILO has concluded that the United Kingdom is in breach of the agreement, at any rate for failing to provide adequate and properly enforced minimum wage protection. The Government have deliberately cut the number of wages inspectors, so the law is not being enforced. The ILO says that almost all countries now operate minimum wage systems. The Council of Europe has reported that the United Kingdom is in breach of the European social charter for failing to maintain a reasonable standard of remuneration for large numbers of wage earners.
The Government's intention to weaken wages councils and to exempt young people up to the age of 21 will affect—the Government will not give us the figures but those who study these matters have given us the approximate figure—about 500,000 young people. That is about one in three of all young people in their first job, or one in five of all young workers who will lose the protection of wages councils. The older workers, whose protection will be much diminished, are mostly low-paid women workers, and a significant number of them are black.
The Minister knows that all this is being done simply on the basis of dogma and ideology. There is no evidence to suggest that jobs will be produced. The Minister and others gave evidence to the Employment Select Committee which concluded that there was no evidence for the claim that the proposals which will reduce the protection and wages of some of the lowest paid workers will produce new jobs in significant numbers. Instead, we have an attack on the living conditions, rights and employment protection of some of the most vulnerable workers in the land.
We are to encourage bad employers who are unable to organise their workplaces efficiently and to invest al a significant level. The Government's inspiration is to make Britain the sweatshop of the developed world. Britain is a low-wage economy. Compared with any other developed countries, our wage levels are low and the Government want to reduce them even further.
The Labour party is utterly opposed to these proposals and we intend to make it as difficult as possible for the Government to implement them. When we are restored to power—we hope that that will be sooner rather than later—we shall reverse the thrust of this policy and go further than restoring the current level of wages council protection. It is our policy to introduce a national minimum wage because our inspiration is to have a high-wage, high skill, high tech economy in Britain rather than the sweatshop economy that the Government offer.

The Parliament Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The first time that the three hon. Members who will have spoken in this debate came together was in the debate on low pay on 15 February 1984 at column 325–26. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that his voice has lost nothing since then. His argument has, I suspect, gained nothing either, except that he has given nearly accurately descriptions of the answers that I have


done my best to provide him with for this debate so that he could inform his speech. He has put forward a robust and loud argument for his views.
I suggest to anyone who comes to this debate on paper that they would find greatest value in some of the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. They should pay attention to his threat to spend the summer going around his constituency talking to young people. Leaving aside the levity that might be tempting at this time of the morning, I seriously encourage the hon. Gentleman, when talking to young people, to ensure that they consider the opportunities that may be available to them to train, to improve skills and to take jobs that are available now.
There is common agreement that it will take time for legislation to be put before the House on wages councils. No significant changes will be made to young people's pay rates for about a year. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East pointed out, the ILO convention prevents this country from benefiting from de-ratification, so during the next 12 months it is important that each Member of Parliament should do everything possible to help young people to find the best opportunities that are available to them. Whatever hon. Members' views about the youth training scheme may be—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) for not airing, as usual, her views on YTS in this debate——

Ms. Clare Short: It is a long time since I said anything about it.

Mr. Bottomley: I was acknowledging that fact. The hon. Lady is slipping back into her usual habit of answering not only other Members' questions but even my own. I hope that hon. Members will encourage young people to consider seriously the options that are now available to them.
At the heart of the debate about low pay and young people, or wages councils and young people, is the pay and jobs link. This is not a mechanistic link. There may be a mechanistic element to it, but the greatest change in the employment opportunities for young people comes about when people set out to make it possible for more young people to be employed—when they remember the needs of young people instead of forgetting them. I do not know whether the hon. Lady can tell me how many people under the age of 18 are employed by the Labour party. I doubt whether she can, and it is unfair to ask an off-the-cuff question like that.
There is one sector that has never been attached to a wages council but that has an industrial agreement very similar to a wages council agreement. It covers the same sort of detail but goes rather further on training. If somebody were to say, "If the starting rate for a 16-yearold were to be reduced from £42 a week to £28 a week, what do you think the job impact would be? How many more job opportunities would be created?" some people would reply, "I do not think that any more jobs would be created", while others would say, "How can one tell?" If somebody gave the second answer, it would be possible for people to make the obvious comment, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East did in his speech, that the Government have made no big claim about precisely how many jobs they think will be created and therefore we should not believe that any more jobs will be created.
The fact is that in the only example for which we have figures, which is integrated with YTS, 850 people were taken on when the starting rate was £42 a week. Within a year the number went up to 2,500, in the following year to over 3,000 and in the year after that to over 3,000 again. In one relatively small industrial sector the number of jobs for 16-year-olds went up from 850 to over 3,000.

Mr. Nellist: That was thanks to Frank Chapple.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman accurately says that that was thanks to Frank Chapple. But it is not only a question of thanks to the electricians' union and to the electrical contractors. This has been of great benefit to young people. Apart from having found a welcome rung on the ladder, there was quality training and an independent future for young people, working either for a firm or as independent electricians. Nobody regards the electrical contracting training scheme as inadequate. In fact, it ought to be a model for other industries.

Mr. Nellist: The Minister is talking about "jobs". They are not jobs; they are training places. It is easy to say that, because the YTS allowance has been reduced from what its real value should have been—£40—to £26·25, about 500,000 youngsters have gone through YTS. It does not alter the fact that most of those youngsters will not find jobs when they complete their training. His argument is that more jobs will be created by reducing wages. so the example does not support his argument.

Mr. Bottomley: The assertions that I have made and the facts that I have described are slightly more limited than the hon. Gentleman believes. I was making the point that, had we been asked in 1982—we were not, because Parliament had no standing in this—what would be the training places consequence of that agreed change in the starting rate of pay or allowance for 16-year-olds, none of us could have predicted it with accuracy.

Ms. Clare Short: I am sure that the Minister does not intend to mislead anyone who might read what he is saying. It will not do to talk about replacing real, permanent jobs with a salary by a scheme financed by the Government, or to argue that that tells us anything about the consequences of cutting wages. We could debate for ever the desirability of that agreement with the EETPU and the merits or demerits of the youth training scheme, but the Minister's example does not fit the point that he is trying to argue.

Mr. Bottomley: I have no doubt that if the hon. Lady and I were on the same Standing Committee we could explore these matters at a rather more sensible hour than this. The fact remains that if, in 1982, she had been asked how many more people would be taken on, she would not have got the answer right. Nor would I. That is one reason why I told the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East in a written reply that one could not estimate some of those figures.
It is worth challenging one point made by the hon. Lady. I am sure that, on reflection, she will realise that she could have phrased her remarks differently. She claimed that the Government were setting out, through tax policy, to make the low paid worse off. I do not claim to have quoted her directly. I do not know whether she has made an estimate of the gain from the Budget announcements


on tax, national insurance and family income supplement to a married man on low pay, with a non-earning wife and two children.

Ms. Clare Short: Yes.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give us the figures?

Ms. Clare Short: I can tell the Minister about the effects, not only of the Budget, but of tax policy since 1979. A married couple earning about £95 a week, with two children, now pay 60 per cent. more tax than they did in 1978–79. A single person on a similar wage now pays 26·1 per cent. in income tax and national insurance—an increase of 10 per cent. on the proportion paid in 1978–79. Despite the small cuts in income tax for most people, the low paid have suffered from an increase in their overall tax burden due to greatly increased national insurance contributions and indirect taxes, such as VAT. That goes beyond the Budget, but that is the position. The Minister has nothing to boast about.

Mr. Bottomley: A great advantage of the Consolidated Fund debate is that we can have a debate. I asked the hon. Lady whether she has, or has asked for, any estimates of what the changes proposed in the 1985 Budget on tax, national insurance and FIS would mean to a married person on low pay, with a non-working wife and two children.

Mr. Nellist: The replacement of family income supplement by family credit will have a direct effect on the low paid, because it will encourage more low-paying employers to continue to pay low wages. They can be directly subsidised by the Government. It would also increase the stigma among the low paid, because that supplement will be paid through the employer. Perhaps most importantly, the provision removes money from the wife, who normally has responsibility for bringing up the family—who can claim family income supplement now—and pays it to the wage earner, who is usually the man. It removes a sizeable chunk of money from the control of the wife. There are changes in the Budget that, on that one item of family income credit, will be directly detrimental to the low-paid in Britain.

Mr. Bottomley: One of the troubles in almost any debate involving the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East and for Ladywood is that I spend my time listening carefully to what they are saying, and they spend very little time listening carefully to what I am saying. The hon. Gentlemen is talking about the social security reviews and not the Budget. The answer to the question that I put to both hon. Members is nearly £10 a week. The level of gross pay that would be needed to translate into nearly £10 a week is nearly £25 a week.
I recognise that I am talking about people with families rather than those without family responsibilities, but is one seriously going to argue for the minimum pay route along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry South-East, which will have the effect of driving many people out of work, and concentrating most of the extra funds on those who do not have family responsibilities? Both the Labour party and the Tory party will have to start thinking about that carefully.
One cannot go through life arguing, as people have, that the position of all those on low pay should be raised so that everyone at work can meet the needs of a full

household with dependent children from their income. I know that the hon. Member for Ladywood would not suggest that, and perhaps in about a year's time we shall have the opportunity to debate these issues at greater length.
I prefer to stick to two or three essential points. There is a philosophical argument about legislation to forbid people to offer and take pay at anything up to two and a half times the amount of income that they could get if they were unemployed and getting unemployment pay. The Government have taken the view that it is right to keep wages councils and wages council orders on hourly rates for adults. There have been times when it was thought that we would abolish wages councils altogether. The hon. Member for Ladywood accused me of planting stories in the newspapers to that effect——

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave her in employment questions, w hen the matter first came up, but perhaps we shall get used to each other in time.
My predecessor spelt out in the debate in February 1984 the fact that we had been looking seriously at those who are forced into greatest poverty by unemployment. Various things contribute to unemployment, one of which is being in a country where the unit costs rise when they are falling among our major competitors, many of whom have standards of living that are higher than ours. We are competing in international trade not with those whose pay rates are lower than ours, but with those whose pay rates are higher than ours, but whose unit costs are lower because of investment, working methods and the way that people work together. It is important that people recognise all the contributory factors to economic and industrial success, and that they give thought to sharing the greater benefits of prosperity more fairly.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke about a shorter working week. That would clearly lead to work sharing, but I was not clear whether he was advocating pay sharing as well or whether, in a shorter working week, those already at work would be able to keep all the benefits and there would be extra costs on the employer, whether in the public or private sector, for the employment of other people.
I assume the hon. Gentleman is saying openly that he does not believe that one would have proper work sharing, because presumably if one is to maintain a proper standard of living, one would have to produce in 35 hours what people are now producing in, say, 39 hours. If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep unit labour costs roughly the same, that is the logical consequence.
The next point is about inadequate demand. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has calculated how much pay has gone up in this country in nominal terms in the last live or six years, but the answer is by about £50,000 million. But most of that has been eliminated by inflation and has not been a real increase. If one looks at TUC minimum pay targets over the decades, one will see they have gone up from £15 to almost £115 a week. Nearly all that increase has had a destabilising effect on the economy, helping unit labour costs in this country to rise much faster than they have risen in other countries, or to rise here when they are falling in other countries. The lower paid. and unemployed, and especially unemployed young people have not been helped at all.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give his definition of unit labour costs? If he means the rate per hour, there are plenty of countries such as Sweden and America where the rate of pay per hour in manufacturing industry is far higher than in Britain. If he is talking about the output divided by the number of workers, then one of the many reasons why that equation has failed in Britain is that manufacturing output is down 20 or 30 per cent. first because Britain is losing its share of world markets and, as I said in a speech some time ago, losing its share of the domestic market. Those two losses are due to lack of investment by manufacturing industry in new technology and in factories and new tooling and so on over the past 10 or 15 years. Which of those two definitions is the hon. Gentleman using?

Mr. Bottomley: Like the hon. Gentleman, the one which happens to suit my argument at a particular time. But to be more serious about it, if one takes unit labour costs on the hon. Gentleman's first definition, one will find in the Department of Employment Gazette, which comes out today, an article about movement in unit labour costs. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman can get a copy now. It has yet to be released. It may come out later today. The plain fact is that there are comparative cases between this country and Germany which show that Germany produces 67 per cent. more than we do, because the Germans manage to work more effectively together.

Ms. Clare Short: What about investment?

Mr. Bottomley: They are plants with similar investment. The hon. Lady cannot say, "What about investment?" because the investment is similar and the output is very different. It is the way people work. I will move on, because this is not the only occasion on which we will be able to explore some of these issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the low-pay unit west midlands report. The director of the unit knows I have views on some of the things he puts out, in the same way that he has views on some of the things that we put out. I shall concentrate for a moment on the west midlands study. In the conclusion, the evidence on wages refers to under 18-year-olds, and then immediately goes on to a table illustrating the unemployment increases for 18 and 19-year-olds. That may be a mistake, or it may have been an attempt at deliberate confusion. The fact is, like was not being compared with like. It is page 22.
If the evidence were to be solely devoted to those under 18 it would show that unemployment in this group has fallen as a proportion of total unemployment over the period 1979 to 1984. The report infers on page 7—although it does not actually say—that young people on young worker schemes——

Mr. Nellist: The Minister says that unemployment among young people under 18 has fallen in the past six years, but if he adds the number of registered unemployed under 18 to those on various bogus schemes such as the jobs sector of the young workers scheme and the YTS he will find that unemployment in the group has not fallen as a percentage of total unemployment in the past six years.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has views on the YTS which are not shared by the trainees. If he suggests that trainee electricians are in bogus jobs — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ladywood objects to taxpayers' money being used for training young people, she had better say so clearly.

Ms. Clare Short: I am making a simple point and I am sure that even at 5.15 am the hon. Gentleman can understand it if he tries. Young people who are employed on a Government scheme and are paid an allowance made available by the taxpayer are not comparable to people who are paid wages by employers to keep them in employment.

Mr. Bottomley: Why not?

Ms. Short: Because the cost of one has to be met from the production of the company involved and on the other hand the taxpayer is paying an allowance to someone who is supposed to be a trainee. It is massively different.

Mr. Bottomley: It seems to me that the hon. Lady will be in difficulties with her party. I hope that she has been re-selected.

Ms. Short: I have.

Mr. Bottomley: In that case, I can go on to say that we appear to have reversed roles. The hon. Lady is saying that a job is a real one only if no public funding is involved. Is there any significant difference between the trainee electrician who started in 1982 and the trainees electrician who started this year, except the source of the funding for the allowance and whether earnings are taxed? There is surely no significant difference. If the hon. Lady wants to make a great distinction, she is not the person I thought she was.
The essential argument is that to deny the link between pay and jobs, Labour Members, and sometimes the low pay unit, implicitly assume that wages are the only determinant of employment and unemployment. I leave aside the common recognition that aggregate levels of demand matter a great deal. The question is how to get that aggregate increase in demand. I have already mentioned the £50,000 million nominal increases in pay during the past five or six years. Is that 50 per cent. increase—about 10 per cent. a year—not enough? If it is claimed that the way to increase demand is to have such massive nominal increase in real demand, Opposition Members should start finding a different way forward.
The reason why the low pay unit and Opposition Members need to assume that wages are the only determination of employment and unemployment is that that allows any increase in unemployment at a time of pay reductions to be cited as disproving the link between pay and jobs. The description of a deterioration in youth pay and unemployment over the years 1979 to 1984—the figures that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East kept using—is used to deny the pay and jobs link. The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore any other effects, such as the large demographic cohort passing through the age group during those years. If the hon. Gentleman were willing to split the figures from 1978 to 1982 and from 1982 onwards, which is where we see the impact of some of the Government involvement in new schemes, we should see a slight different pattern.
There is agreement on the need to ensure that there are more and better opportunities for young people. The Government approach is to say that we will not have statutory restrictions on what employers can offer. The hotel and catering trades believe that they will be able to create more opportunities for young people. When I ask trade unionists what they think will happen, their opinions vary. Some are in trades where they are rather more used


to trying to get a trade-off between pay and jobs. Others in the great Labour movement, of which I regard the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East as a member, would deny any link between pay and jobs, and obviously we are not going to get far together in trying to find one. However, there are other people who regard it as part of their responsibility to add to the opportunities available to young people. The Government are going to do the best that they can to encourage people to move forward and make arrangements with freedom and flexibility on setting pay and allowance levels so that the improvement can be seen. Too often people have walked by on the other side when there was a chance and a need to create greater opportunities.

Mr. Nellist: I am sitting in seeming amazement listening to the description of training opportunities for young people described as a laudable exercise by the Government, which will lead to real jobs. I do not regard The Times newspaper as a particularly Socialist organ, but a couple of weeks before the opening of the YTS scheme, in the early part of September 1983, its editorial described YTS as a crude anti-riot device designed to keep young people out of the unemployment figures and off the streets. That was why the Government planned to change from cutting their provision on youth training by £14 million in 1979 to spending £1,000 million by 1983. It had nothing to do with training, jobs or giving young people hope. It was a knee-jerk response to Toxteth, and a way of fiddling the figures.
The Minister ought to deal with the realities of 500,000 youngsters who have not worked under this Government, and with the proper provision of jobs rather than trying to masquerade by portraying YTS as some laudable training scheme. That is no criticism of the individual instructors who are trying to make the best of those schemes. The Government's reason for setting up the schemes was to reduce the unemployment figures from the real level of nearly 5 million down to the artificially low level of 3·25 million.

Mr. Bottomley: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman at last has remembered that many people involved in training young people are also likely to be members of trade unions, and he has made his statutory gesture towards their dedication to the needs of young people.
In addition to joining the hon. Gentleman in praising those involved in YTS in the various modes, and

recognising that over 80 per cent. of young people on YTS think that it is useful to them, and many think that it is very useful to them. I want to make the point that having flexibility to set rates of pay which are more realistic is a way not of penalising people but of helping more people.
One thing that helps young people is being able to get work. The approach of the hon. Gentleman, while we have had the wages councils structure, has been to deny many young people the opportunity of getting on the bottom rung of the employment ladder and moving upwards.
This year in Germany, 600,000 young people will get recognised qualifications. In this country, the number is a relatively small percentage of that figure. That has happened not just in the last six years. It has been developing because we have taken our eye off the needs of 40 per cent. of school leavers, and we have created a system that has perhaps given some of them the idea that they can sit back and not take one of the options that is likely to be of greatest advantage as they grow up. That is, staying on at school, going on in further or higher education, taking a traineeship and getting a job. We have allowed many of them to dc nothing and to feel that they are not needed and cannot move themselves forward. That has been changing. In this, YTS has played a major part. Having the freedom to set pay rates in the wages council sector is another part. Perhaps the most important part of all is in the 90 per cent. of the economy which has been governed—and restricted—not by wages councils, but by out of date attitudes, whereby people have turned their backs on the needs of young people.
I do not want to build too much on electrical contracting, but I think that has shown the way forward. In 1982, we did not have even that. If other industries look to their responsibilities in the way that the electrical contractors and the EETPU have, we can have this debate in three or four years with many more examples—some from the wages council sectors and some from outside, some from the private sector and, I hope, many more from the public sector. Then we can discover what happened to the young people to whom the hon. Gentleman intends to devote his summer and we shall be able to test whether my approach or his is right.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter this evening. I thank the hon. Member for Ladywood for providing the meat in the sandwich between us.

Orders of the Day — Welsh Language

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad of this opportunity, even at an unusual hour, to raise in the House, before the recess, questions relating to the implications of the ruling by the industrial tribunal at Colwyn Bay last Friday on matters relating to the Welsh language and the social services in the county of Gwynedd.
There has been a massive reaction of outrage in my county at the decision reached at the tribunal hearing because of its possible implications for people in that whole area, namely, the clients of the social services department. I do not wish to dwell too long on the actual details of the case, although it is impossible to consider the effects of the decision without referring briefly to the complaint. To understand the strength of feeling against the tribunal decision, it is necessary to look at the manner in which the matter came to be considered by the Commission for Racial Equality, which sponsored the two-person case.
The case involved Mrs. Phyllis Jones of Amlwch and Mrs. Justine Doyle of Bangor, who were aggrieved that they had been turned down for a number of jobs by the social services department of Gwynedd county council. The jobs were in residential homes for the elderly and mentally handicapped in Ynys Môn. They alleged that they had been turned down because they did not speak Welsh. The county defended its position and insisted that to be able to speak Welsh was necessary to give the residents a full service in line with the county's longstanding bilingual policy.
A significant proportion of the residents of these homes have Welsh as their first language. The objective of the county's bilingual policy is to provide services in whichever language—Welsh or English—is preferred by the client. The county has always held that to provide linguistic freedom for those who receive a service from the authority, there is a need for those who provide that service to be bilingual. The county maintains that that is especially relevant to social services, which deal in direct personal services.
To the amazement of my constituents, which has been passed on to me in strident and impassioned terms, the tribunal decided against Gwynedd county council. In the words of its chairman, Mr. John Bellis:
We take the view that the imposition of a condition of Welsh speaking has been a condition of employment, and can't be justified in a mixed language society in Gwynedd.
According to press reports, he went on to say
To be Welsh speaking was not a genuine occupational qualification.
Several matters arise from that case. The first, which has aroused enormous comment in Gwynedd, is whether such a case should ever have been brought before the Commission for Racial Equality. The Race Relations Act 1976 was never intended for such purposes. That is quite clear from the White Paper which preceded it. Ministers who were involved with the Bill's passage at that time have confirmed this. The Act defined that a person discriminates against another if:
on racial grounds he treats the other less favourably.
The Act defines "racial grounds" as:
any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.

It says nothing about language. yet I understand that language has been accepted by the commission as a basis of indirect discrimination.
I put it to the House that to require a person to speak Welsh, or English for that matter, to do a job in the way required by the employer has nothing to do with race. Plenty of Welsh people do not speak Welsh, and many English, Scots, Irish and, in my home town of Caernarfon, Chinese do speak Welsh. To assert that the question has anything to do with race is absolute nonsense, and the commission is abusing its responsibilities by allowing itself to be used in such a way.
The inappropriateness of considering matters relating to the Welsh language in Wales under the Act was recognised by the Government in Dyson v. Department of Health and Social Security in Shrewsbury a couple of years ago, when the Treasury Solicitor argued on behalf of the Government that a language requirement would not be discriminatory under the Act. Likewise, the Manela case in the House of Lords more recently established two essential ingredients for a case to fall within racial discrimination, and neither of them related to language.
In another case, Fawkes v. Dyfed health authority in 1979, it was found:
The speech therapist who would have been appointed to work in Ceredigion would have been providing persons of a racial group, namely, Welsh-speaking Welshmen, with personal services promoting their welfare, and that service could most effectively be provided by a person who was Welsh-speaking.
That case is important, for it not only found against the proposition of racial discrimination in these circumstances, but related to matters covered by clause 35 of the 1976 Act, which states:
Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in offording persons of a particular racial group access to facilities or services to meet the special needs of person of that group in regard to their education, training or welfare, or any ancillary benefits.
I stress the word "welfare".
Even if my contention that the language question should have nothing to do with race is refuted, there is a specific provision in the Act to cover the access to welfare services of the type involved in the Colwyn Bay case. The tribunal disregarded both the provisions of clause 35 and the finding in the Fawkes case in reaching its astounding decision. The chairman's explanation for his disregard of clause 35 was, in the words of one lawyer, "perverse and ludicrous", and I hope that the Government will look carefully at that part of the written decision when they study it.
There is a further case which casts even more doubt on the validity of the tribunal's decision, and that was Sweeting v. Amgueddfa Mor Porthmadog in 1983. In that case, it was found perfectly reasonable that the trustees of the museum should have insisted that the manager should be Welsh-speaking, and the case recognised that there is a general discretion on language issues in the sphere of appointments.
That tribunal was unanimous in its decision, according to its chairman, Mr. Day—I refer to paragraph 15 of the decision in case No. 23217/82—and it is fascinating to note that one member of that tribunal was apparently a Mr. D. L. Hawkins, who, I am told, was also a member of the recent Colwyn Bay tribunal. I trust that the House will want to know on what basis there should have been such a change of interpretation in the law in the last two years when the law has not changed.
It is interesting to note, however, that, apparently after the Sweeting case, a Mr. Calvert, who had conducted the Race Relations Commission case, said on a Granada television programme that the commission had its eye on Gwynedd and was particularly keeping its eye on local government. The whole case stinks of vindictiveness and a vendetta by the Race Relations Commission and by the tribunal to put the boot into the Welsh language.
The Minister should confirm whether it is true that the commission is only now, after that case, intending to set up a body to consider the implications for it, as a commission, of matters relating to the Welsh language. If that is true, where on earth has the commission been for the last nine years, and is it its normal policy to shoot first and only thereafter to find out the facts?
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there was a division of opinion under the Race Relations Commission about whether the case should ever have been brought forward and whether Mr. German, the only Welsh member, I understand, opposed the commission's action in the matter but was overruled.
In any event, the Colwyn Bay case calls for a detailed review by the Government of the working both of the Commission for Racial Equality and the industrial tribunal structure to protect Welsh-speaking people from the type of ignorance and prejudice shown in the case. There is also a need to review the Act to clarify what it is meant to do and what is not appropriate under such legislation.
I contend that the actions of Gwynedd county council were not discriminatory in law, were within the exceptions provided by section 5 of the 1976 Act, were justified on social and linguistic grounds and, in any event, were valid under section 35 of the Act. I contend also that the tribunal's decision was perverse and malicious. The appropriateness of having a language requirement for a job in Gwynedd—this principle holds in the rest of Wales although its application may vary from area to area—must revolve around the right of the consumer to have the service in the language of his choice, be that Welsh or English. The Gwynedd county council has adopted, since its inception in 1974, a bilingual policy and has maintained the policy that to give its clients the freedom of choice of language, the council must operate in a bilingual manner.
There are some jobs in which employees have no interface with the public and there is no pressing requirement for them to speak Welsh. In jobs which involve dealing with the public, employees need to speak both languages. It is unacceptable in a largely Welsh-speaking area that the public should be expected to change from their first language to their second for the convenience of local government officers, who are there to serve the public.
We must remember that at the last census my constituency was 84 per cent. Welsh speaking. Ynys Môn, where the jobs which were the subject of the Colwyn Bay tribunal were located, was 62 per cent. Welsh speaking. About two out of every three letters that I receive from my constituents are written in the Welsh language. Welsh is the normal vehicle of everyday life. Many young children are virtually monoglot Welsh speakers and many of the elderly are markedly happier in the Welsh language. They can express themselves more fluently, can comprehend more clearly and are generally more relaxed and comfortable if they can relate to those around them through the Welsh language. These elderly people have probably spoken nothing but Welsh in their homes

throughout their lives. It would be invidious if, having to enter a home for the elderly in their latter years, they were put in an alien atmosphere in which they were at least uncomfortable and at worst positively unhappy.
That is no imaginary fear, for I have received frequent complaints over the years. They come usually from the children of elderly people, who tell me of the need of their mothers or fathers to have staff looking after them who can speak their language. To be fair, the complaints have been much more oriented against the Gwynedd district health authority than the county council.
More recently there have been complaints about private residential homes. Only last week I received two separate complaints about a home near Caenarfon which had originally been run by Welsh speakers. When they sold out, an English-speaking family took over. I have nothing against them personally, but the occupants of the elderly persons' residence were distraught, according to two constituents who came to see me separately. For the first time in their lives, these elderly people have had to live through the medium of an English-speaking home. It may not be easy to do anything about the private homes, but I become increasingly uneasy when I hear complaints of the sort that I have outlined. However, in homes run by Gwynedd county council social services department, the linguistic needs of each individual resident should be catered for. English-speaking residents should be helped by staff who are able and willing to chat to them in English, and likewise Welsh-speaking residents should have the same facility in their own language.
Against this background, it is to fly in the face of reality to claim, as the tribunal did, that
To be Welsh speaking was not a genuine occupational qualification".
If I quote the proportions of Welsh-speaking elderly people who are resident in the homes, it will give the House an idea of the pattern At Plas Penlan, Llangefni, which is one of the homes in question before the tribunal, there are 30 residents and 29 of these are Welsh speaking. Over the whole of Anglesey, 77 per cent. of the residents of county council homes for the elderly are Welsh speaking and 23 per cent. are riot. In the Arfon and Dwyfor areas, which include my constituency, 89 per cent. are Welsh speaking and only 11 per cent. are not. It is clear that the Welsh language needs of the residents must be taken into account for their welfare and happiness.
Some will argue that, as many of the Welsh speakers are almost as fluent in English, too much regard should not be given to this question. I contend that it is not only a matter of convenience and desirability for the elderly to live through the medium of the Welsh language if they wish, but a question of elementary human rights. If there is a clash between the rights of employees to speak English and the rights of the elderly to have their services through the medium of Welsh, I have no doubt that in a caring, compassionate society the rights of the elderly should take precedence.
As people get older and more frail, there is sometimes a tendency to live in the past—often, a monoglot Welsh-speaking past. As the chairman in the Fawkes v. Dyfed health authority case noted in 1979:
Elderly patients…tended to revert to their first language.
In evidence during this case which ruled out racial discrimination when a Welsh requirement was stipulated for a job in Dyfed, Dr. Glyn Rees drew particular attention


to the strong possibility that a non-Welsh-speaking person could be unaware of his or her disadvantage when communicating with a Welsh-speaking person in English. This is an extremely important point, as many English speakers have little comprehension of speaking in any other language and have difficulty facing those who are using their second language.
The case that I have made in relation to homes for the elderly is obviously even more valid with regard to homes for those with mental handicaps. There has been an enormous reaction in my constituency against the tribunal's decision, and our office in Caernarfon has been flooded with callers and telephone calls protesting and demanding fair play for the Welsh language. More than 1,000 people have signed a pledge that they will not henceforth, because of this case, use the English language in talk or in writing to any government official, whether local or central. That shows the reaction of the people.
I shall quote some of the letters that I have received. I shall quote in Welsh a letter that I received from Mr.Lewis from Dyfed. I believe that it is in order for to do so and then translate. The letter stated:
Nonsens pur yw cymysgu cymhwyster i swydd a rhagfarn hiliol. Mae'r gallu i gyfathrebu, a hynny yn iaith y bobl yn eich gofal, yn gymhwyster hanfodol i berson mewn galwedigaeth gofal. Ymddengys fod yna ormod o grancod unllygeidiog yn Ilechu o dan ambarel y Comisiwn Hiliol.
The letter translates as follows:
It is utter nonsense to mix up qualifications for a job with racial prejudice. The ability to communicate, in the language of those people in your care, is an essential qualification in a caring profession. It appears that there are too many one-eyed cranks lurking under the umbrella of the Commission for Racial Equality.
I have received from Mrs. Margaret Moore and 20 people living in the Llandudno area—this will be of interest to the Minister—a copy of a letter sent to the Commission for Racial Equality. The letter states:
We, the undersigned, are not all Welsh speaking, but this does not blind us to the rights of all people to speak their native language in certain circumstances and at certain times.
We should have thought that even rough justice would not deem it a privilege for people to speak their mother tongue in their own country. However, we are prepared to put aside that point at the moment and concentrate on another aspect of this matter.
Vulnerable people—e.g. minorities, must be protected; the sick, frail, mentally confused and children have a real need to be understood without having to resort to a foreign language. Physical caring is not enough; this is the caring of people for animals and it ignores the needs of the human spirit.
Your recent decision at Colwyn Bay puts the rights of two women to work in a particular employment above the rights of others to communicate in their own tongue. The two applicants have a remedy in their own hands—they can learn Welsh. What remedy is there for the old people whose rights have been so cruelly dismissed?
Another letter recalls the words of a former inspector of taxes, Mr. Norman Price, who was non-Welsh speaking when he came to Porthmadog. He said:
I could not do justice to the taxpayer or to the Government if I did not learn the Welsh language.
A trade union officer has also made a clear stand in support of the needs of the clients when appointments are made in bilingual areas. Mr. Robert Skillicorn, area officer of NUPE, said that he was appalled that the Commission for Racial Equality should have taken this case on and said that such action was
an infamous racist slur on the community of Gwynedd.

Another NUPE officer has expressed misgivings about the effect of the decision on inner city areas in England, where there are minority communities with special linguistic needs.
A problem with the whole issue has been the commission's failure to differentiate between racial prejudice and linguistic needs. When I went to its offices in Victoria last year to discuss the matter I got the impression that it was wholly ignorant of circumstances in Wales, and surprisingly lacking in empathy or sympathy, given that it should have some feeling for communities with their own cultural dimensions. Given that the Commission for Racial Equality deals mainly with ethnic minorities of English cities, it is ironic to read the comments of the Swann report entitled "Education for All", which was published in March. Page 410 states
We are convinced that a facility, or even a qualification, in a community language should be seen as providing any young person with a skill of direct relevance to work in areas of ethnic minority settlement in fields such as social services, nursing and education, where dealing with people is so important. We would therefore expect to see schools and the careers service emphasising the value of languages in such careers, and employers, particularly local authorities, seeing language skills as one of the criteria to be used when making appointments in these fields.
The commission which insists on using race discrimination law intended for ethnic minorities to prevent services from being provided in the Welsh language disregards one of the central themes of modern thinking in relation to linguistic minorities, that is that welfare services should be provided in their languages, as the Swann report advocated.
I cited those examples to show that the case, about which I feel so strongly, is based not on nationalistic reasoning or a cultural analysis alone, but on the sensible needs of people in a bilingual community, and the responsibility of both local and central government to respond to those needs. The Welsh Office recognises that, as was shown in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) when the Secretary of State said
The guiding principle with appointments to posts in all parts of the Civil Service is that the best available candidate should be selected. This is however in no way inconsistent with giving appropriate weight in the selection process to ability to speak Welsh in cases where this would be an advantage in undertaking the duties of the post concerned taking account of the linguistic situation in Wales."—[Official Report, 17 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 212.]
That answer introduces a further dimension to the argument. Sometimes it is claimed that jobs are given to people solely on their ability to speak Welsh, irrespective of any other qualification. Clearly that would be wrong. The ability to speak Welsh is one of many qualifications for various jobs. It would be as stupid to ignore the need for the other qualifications necessary to undertake a job, as it would be to deny the relevance of the Welsh language as a qualification for many jobs, for example in the social services or in health care.
On some occasions there are no suitable applicants for a job who can speak Welsh, although the job ideally needs a Welsh speaker, and it may be necessary to appoint someone who does not speak Welsh and to train him or her to speak the language, or to appoint someone who speaks Welsh and to give him or her training to learn the necessary skill. Which of the two alternatives is the more practical will vary from case to case. However, it is not acceptable to allow either a stipulation of "Welsh


essential" to lead to unsatisfactory appointments, or to make appointments of persons unwilling to accept a need for acquiring communication skills in Welsh. As the Secretary of State said, there need be no incompatibility between those two different alternatives.
Regarding the problems of those seeking employment in Gwynedd, if such a person does not speak Welsh he will find that some jobs are not open to him. Clearly, for the foreseeable future Welsh will always be a prerequisite for some jobs. At the clearest level, a person will be unable to be a Welsh teacher or Welsh newscaster if he or she does not speak the language. In those circumstances it is even more important that the bilingual education policy pursued by Gwynedd county council is allowed to succeed. It should ensure that every young person leaving school in Gwynedd is fairly fluent in both languages, and certainly sufficiently fluent to a enable him or her to meet the requirements of jobs where conversational Welsh is required, such as any jobs in residential homes run by the social services.
It is worth remembering that those who in the past have stood against a bilingual education policy have now caused problems for some non-Welsh speakers in Gwynedd. There is another problem facing people who move into Gwynedd to live and who are not Welsh speakers. My message to such people is, "Please will you realise that you are moving into a bilingual society, and be willing to adapt accordingly."
Many persons have done so successfully and have learnt Welsh, or at least made a fair effort. I salute them. One who has tried hard is the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), and I hope that his other constituents in Anglesey who have moved in will make an equal effort.
If they do, their welcome will be that much warmer and they will find it easier to integrate into the community. They too can achieve for themselves, with a little effort, enough Welsh to overcome the language criteria for many jobs. This year, for example, Gwynedd county council has appointed both a chief officer and a deputy chief officer who have learnt Welsh in the council's service. In both cases Welsh was essential for the post.
What, therefore, now needs to be done to reverse the damage done to community relations in Gwynedd by this appalling tribunal decision? First, there must clearly be a review of the role of the Commission for Racial Equality in such cases, and possibly new people to serve on it who have a better understanding of areas such as Gwynedd and who will concentrate on their proper role of minimising race difficulties instead of causing them. There should also be an amendment to the Race Relations Act 1976, so that making the Welsh language a qualification for jobs in Wales does not constitute racial discrimination.
Secondly, the Welsh Office must give a positive lead by spelling out to local authorities, perhaps by circular, that they must have due regard to the linguistic needs of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers in the provision of personal social services, and that the requirement of the client should dictate the language in which the service is provided, not vice versa.
Thirdly, Gwynedd county council should put more effort into ensuring that everyone who leaves school in Gwynedd is free from a linguistic handicap that will limit his or her job prospects in the county. It should also make greater efforts to ensure that young school leavers have the other technical skills needed to fill the jobs that are available within the community in Gwynedd.
Fourthly, there is a need for a new Welsh language Act to enshrine in law the fundamental rights of Welsh speakers to use their own language in their own country, and that in order to give each citizen the equal right to use either language in dealing with authority, there needs to be a policy of official bilingualism in Wales.
To make this practical, additional resources will be needed to help people to learn the language, whether to open up a broader range of job opportunities or for whatever other reason. There must also be a powerful and dynamic body to co-ordinate Welsh language education.
There should be an abundance of courses for people to learn the language quickly and effectively. Perhaps a good, symbolic start for a new era of this sort would be for the Secretary of State for Wales himself to undertake to learn the language.
There is a need to review the performance of industrial tribunals, such as that at Colwyn Bay last Friday, to ensure that the members have a full grasp of the community dimensions of the area in winch they operate and to ensure that we have no repeat of the disastrous performance that we saw last week.
If these steps could be secured, some good may yet come out of this unfortunate saga. If no such progress is made, there will be a simmering resentment among the Welsh-speaking community in Gwynedd which the Government will ignore at their peril, and the Commission for Racial Equality will have the doubtful honour of knowing that it has been contributory to creating a bitter community conflict that could take years to dispel.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye so early in the morning on this very important issue of the use of the Welsh language—our language.
I have travelled throughout the night to support the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). There is a principle at stake, which is why many of us are here to support the hon. Gentleman.
The Welsh language is the oldest language spoken within the EEC, and it is our duty to safeguard the interests of our language. For the last few days, I have had the privilege of attending the Royal Welsh show — a national event attended by many thousands of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers. I was delighted to see the Minister at the show. I am sure he will agree that we were both delighted that the commentators were bilingual.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have, over the years, worked hard to ensure that the Welsh language is recognised in Wales, as provided in the Act of 1967. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the Act should be upgraded in the years to come. Many of us fought hard for our own television channel on which Welsh would be spoken. Many of us fought hard for bilingual education in Wales. believe that many of us are doing our very best to try to safeguard the interests of our language and culture.
The issue we are debating tonight is different. What one must bear in mind in this debate is the welfare of the old and infirm in our society, for whom the social services have responsibility. In Gwynedd, as in my constituency, I would expect that the vast majority of such people not only speak Welsh but prefer to express themselves in the Welsh language, feeling indeed that they cannot make


themselves adequately understood unless they speak in Welsh, the language of their home, their chapel, and a language entirely appropriate to their way of life.
To force them to discuss their problems and their fears in what is to them an alien tongue is to treat them as second-class citizens. To say that a knowledge of the Welsh language is not a necessary qualification for a situation that involves close contact with these people seems to me to be entirely wrongheaded and extremely obtuse. I should think that communication through a common language is the most important ingredient in the relationship that involves social workers and their clients. I know through my own experience that many elderly people in the rural areas of Wales find it difficult to communicate in English—what is to them a strange and foreign language.
I have great sympathy with those people in Wales who are unable to speak the language of heaven, but I am sure that the vast majority of them would admit that certain jobs require fluency in Welsh. I am convinced that the position of a social worker caring for the elderly and infirm in the heart of rural Wales is one such case.
I am appalled that the Commission for Racial Equality should have become involved in this matter, which is not concerned with race, colour or creed. What is concerned is the suitablility of applicants for a certain sensitive kind of work and their qualification to perform it—their ability to communicate with their clients who live in Wales.
I am here to support the hon. Member for Caernarfon, the Gwynedd county council and other county councils in Wales. I urge the Minister, in closing the debate, to advise local authorities in Wales that certain jobs within the health and social services require fluency in Welsh. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon and the Gwynedd county council will be successful in their deliberations and that people will be employed who are bilingual and who will look after the interests of those who are old and infirm in our society and need care given to them by people who speak their language.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I congratulate my compatriot, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), on bringing this important topic to the notice of the House at the break of dawn this Thursday.
The Welsh language has shot into prominence as a result of the deliberations at Colwyn Bay, and as a result of what happened yesterday in the Welsh Grand Committee debate on Welsh language and training. The hon. Member for Caernarfon has expressed just indignation at what happened at Colwyn Bay. However, I have some sympathy with the two ladies who applied repeatedly for a job for which they were probably adequately qualified. They could not do work at which they would have been skilled and which would have been useful in that community. I fully agree with the early-day motion in the names of the hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), but again there are far wider and deeper implications for the Welsh language than are implied in parts of the motion.
The Welsh language is now going through a difficult period. Parts of the recent census were encouraging, and parts were not. We are dealing with what happened in

Gwynedd. Without doubt it is now the most Welsh part of Wales. I was surprised when I heard the hon. Member for Caernarfon telling us of the tremendous dominance of the Welsh-speaking population in homes for the elderly. We who come from other Welsh parts of Wales must be careful because the situation with us is not so black and white as it appears to be in that part of Wales.
I fully suported the hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) when they referred to the importance that we in Wales attach to the welfare of the elderly, particularly when they have to go into homes and hospitals. Those are acute and traumatic periods of their lives. If they are then not to be allowed to use the language with which they are most familiar, barriers are set up. In the end, they will work to the detriment of the clients.
Reference has been made to the Hughes-Parry report, which we thought at the time would safeguard the equal status of the Welsh language in the Principality. Undoubtedly the report needs urgent revision. I hope that the Minister will respond in some way to the setting up of a similar commission, because there is undoubtedly a great deal of tightening up to be done if the Hughes-Parry recommendations are to be carried forward into the conditions obtaining in Wales in the last quarter of the 20th century.
We are all aware that certain parts of Welsh Wales are desirable places where English people or non-Welshspeaking people, both young and old, wish to move and settle. Many retired people have settled there. The linguistic mix is constantly changing, but we are not doing enough to ensure that the transition is smooth. There is occasionally friction, which leads to intemperate actions, which often carry through into the headlines when the headlines should tell of the more useful and harmonious occasions.
I have received complaints from parents of young children about the difficulties that Welsh-speaking children encounter when they have to go to hospital. It is essential that paediatric departments should have at least one fluent Welsh-speaking junior doctor. I have often made representations to east Dyfed and the former Dyfed health authorities about the fact that so many nurses are not fully conversant with the Welsh language. It is only natural that children should feel uncomfortable in those circumstances, but some become apprehensive, and we must all be worried about ill children becoming apprehensive.
I was disappointed to learn recently that east Dyfed does not have a speech therapist able to rehabilitate people in their native Welsh who have suffered cerebro-vascular accidents and others.

Mr. Wigley: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and the Minister for being here. When my two handicapped boys were three and four years old, they had to see a speech therapist in Bangor. The speech therapist did not speak Welsh and the boys did not speak any English. However good the speech therapist was, she could not do the work because she could not communicate. It is not a matter of national pride or culture but the ability to do the work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in circumstances such as those, to say that knowledge of Welsh is not a qualification necessary to undertake the work is nonsense?

Dr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman can only feel ill at ease at such a personal incident in his life. It is essential that elderly people and children be able to converse in their first language. It is remarkable that, in any personal conversations, the hon. Members for Caernarfon, for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, the Minister and I would use the medium of Welsh. In the formal atmosphere of the Chamber we are discussing this matter through the medium of what is the second language of those hon. Members present at this important debate. I do not wish to refer this morning to what happened yesterday, but part of the difficulty that led to the hot-headed action of a certain number of young people lies in the fact that the supportive actions that need to be taken to ensure that the Welsh language is able to flourish and survive are couched in far too vague and ill-defined terms.
I am extremely disappointed that the Secretary of State for Wales has decided not to set up a Welsh language education development body. It would have helped to unify the position. About 500,000 people out of a population of just under 3 million now speak the Welsh language. In cold figures, that means 20 per cent., but for those who speak the Welsh language it accounts for much more than 20 per cent. A high percentage of Welsh speakers are to be found in Gwynedd, while a low percentage of Welsh speakers is to be found in some of the valleys of Glamorgan and Gwent. Unless a body can be established to bring together all these diverse aspects, the Welsh language will suffer.
I hope that the officers and Ministers in the Welsh Office will think again about what is needed to keep alive the Welsh language. At the last census it was stated that the decline in the use of the Welsh language had to some extent been halted. The figures, particularly in the anglicised parts of Wales, start from a very low base line, but they show that there has been an increase in the number of people who are learning Welsh. However, I have found during the last 30 years that in Dyfed there has been a decline in the number of children and young people who speak Welsh. These are the ordinary Welsh speakers, those we refer to as the ordinary Welsh speakers of cefn gwlad. There has also been a decline in the standard and style of the Welsh language that they speak.
I opposed the setting up of the S4C, but I have to admit that its success has been greater than I had expected. That channel ought to be used far more directly so that those whose hold on the Welsh language has become more and more tenuous can discover once again the deep pleasure that can be gained from using the Welsh language.
Once again I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon on raising this subject. It is unfortunate that so many matters relating to Wales are discussed at Westminster at inappropriate times of the night and day. But, at whatever time it is discussed, the people of Wales believe that no topic should have a greater priority, and no topic will have more influence on the future of our country. I hope that the Opposition have not put up a sort of popular front for the future of the Welsh language. The Welsh language is there for all political parties and for all shades of opinion. Yesterday, I was unhappy to hear people on both sides of the debate engaged almost in an auction, trying to say which party had done best for the Welsh language. If the language is to survive, it needs the help of all people of good will in Wales, irrespective of their political opinions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): There is no doubt in any of our minds about the importance of this subject. I am glad that hon. Members did not go into too much detail about the specific case that was heard before the industrial tribunal at Colwyn Bay, and which resulted in the decisions announced by the tribunal chairman on 19 July, although frequent references were inevitable. Those decisions inspired the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to seek this debate. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the decisions could be the subject of an appeal to the employment appeal tribunal within 42 days of the issue of the judgment in writing. Further proceedings are also possible after the appeal tribunal.
Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice such an appeal. The only statements that we can make about the tribunal hearing are based on media reports, for we still await the decisions in a written form. They should be available soon, and we can then study them. In this respect, Gwynedd county council, which was a party in the proceedings before the tribunal, reacted properly after the decisions were announced and offered no comment until it had the decision in writing so that it could consider its implications, and decide whether to appeal. In view of the possibility that the case may become sub judice, it would not be right for me to make any statement which might be interpreted as an attempt to influence the final outcome, and it is certainly not my intention to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also realises that although the Welsh Office has a responsibility for Welsh language matters and for social services in Wales, my right hon. Friend does not have direct responsibility for industrial tribunals or for the Commission for Racial Equality. Nevertheless, it might be helpful if I briefly outlined their remit. Industrial Tribunals are set up under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Under section 54 of the Race Relations Act 1976, an industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a complaint by any person that another person has committed an unlawful act of discrimination against the complainant in the area of employment.
A hearing is normally arranged at which both parties have the opportunity to present evidence before a tribunal. The decision of the tribunal may be given orally at the end of the hearing or reserved, and in cases under the Race Relations Act, among others, the reasons for the decision must be recorded in full in a document signed by the chairman.
Employers or employees dissatisfied with an industrial tribunal decision may appeal to the employment appeal tribunal, established under the Employment Protection Act 1975, within 42 days from the date of issue of the written reasons for the industrial tribunal's decision. An appeal to the employment appeal tribunal can be only on a question of law, not of fact. Employment appeal tribunal proceedings are heard before a High Court judge and one, two or four appointed members with industrial relations experience.
An appeal can be made to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the employment appeal tribunal, but leave must be obtained. The Court of Appeal decision can be challenged in the House of Lords, again with leave. The Race Relations Act makes racial discrimination unlawful


in employment, training and related matters, in education, in the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in the disposal and management of premises. The Act, as I have said, gives individuals a right of direct access to the civil courts and industrial tribunals for legal remedies for unlawful discrimination. The Act affords protection against discrimination on racial grounds to everyone in Great Britain. It would clearly be irresponsible to deprive one particular group of the legal protection that is offered to all others.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the Act defines two kinds of racial discrimination, direct and indirect. Direct discrimination arises where a person treats another person less favourably on racial grounds than he treats, or would treat, someone else. Section 3(1) defines "racial grounds" to mean any of the following: colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Indirect discrimination consists of treatment which may be described as equal in a formal sense between racial groups but discriminatory in its effect on one particular racial group. It arises where a person—the discrimination—applies to another—the victim—who is seeking some benefit from him, for example a job, a condition or requirement with which he must comply, and where the condition or requirement satisfies certain criteria.
First, it is applied, or would be applied, by thediscriminat or equally to persons of any racial group.
Secondly, it is such that the proportion of persons of the victim's racial group who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that group who can comply.
Thirdly, it is to the detriment of the victim because he cannot comply with it.
Fourthly, it cannot be shown to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins of the person to whom it is applied.
Racial discrimination by an employer is not unlawful where being of a particular racial group is a genuine occupational qualification, a matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman. A genuine occupational qualification is not an automatic exception for general categories of jobs. In every case it will be necessary for the employer to show, if the exception is to be claimed, that the particular job in question falls within the criteria set out in section 5 of the Act. These include circumstances when the holder of the job provides persons of a particular group with personal services promoting their welfare, and these services can most effectively be provided by a person of that racial group.
The hon. Member has requested that the Government should review the working of the Race Relations Act. The working of the Act is, I am glad to tell him, kept under constant review by those Government Departments with responsibility for the various areas of the Act's operation, and by the Commission for Racial Equality, one of whose statutory duties is to keep under review the working of the Act. The Government are satisfied that there is already an acceptable mechanism for keeping the Act under review. As I have already said, I am not convinced at this stage that there is a necessity for change. Nevertheless, I note that the hon. Gentleman has presented a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act and when the Bill is printed my colleagues and I will give it careful consideration.
The central issue in this debate relates to the place of a knowledge of Welsh in appointments. We are well aware of this in Government because there are public appointments where a knowledge of Welsh could be judged to be essential. I cite as an example the chairmanship of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. The authority has a responsibility for Welsh language television programmes, and we could have little confidence that such a responsibility could be properly and effectively discharged unless the chief bearer of the responsibility could familiarise himself or herself thoroughly with the content of the programmes and understood the language in which they were produced and transmitted.
There are other appointments where a knowledge of Welsh might be judged to be desirable, but not essential, or where it can be an asset. The needs vary from appointment to appointment.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 17 January this year at column 212. The hon. Gentleman asked about the relationship of the Welsh language and appointments to the Welsh Office. He was told that the guiding principle with appointments to posts in all parts of the Civil Service is that the best available candidate should be selected. This is in no way inconsistent, said my right hon. Friend, with giving appropriate weight in the selection process to ability to speak Welsh in cases where this would be an advantage in understanding the duties of the post concerned, taking account of the linguistic situation in Wales.
One specific example of this is in respect of field monument wardens where we take the ability to speak Welsh into consideration when making appointments in areas where Welsh is the predominant language and where, given the nature of the duties involved, it would be an advantage for those employed to have a knowledge of the language.

Mr. Wigley: In the posts which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State mentioned, the chairmanship of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority was cited as an example. Will he accept that the Welsh language is a genuine occupational qualification for such posts?

Mr. Roberts: In the most general sense, yes. In the legal sense, it might be open to debate, but I have certainly given my view. Reference has been made to the National Health Service in Wales and, of course, the place of the Welsh language in the Health Service has been the subject of guidance from the Welsh Office. It did not appear to me that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was aware of that.
In March 1975 the Welsh Office issued circular WHSC(IS) 117 to area health authorities, family practioner committees, county councils, district councils and community health councils on the subject of the Health Service and the Welsh language. I will quote from that circular two relevant paragraphs:
In a personal service concerned with the health of patients the relationship between the service and individuals seeking advice or treatment must be close and intimate. Much depends on the establishment of confidence between those administering the service and those who seek it. In this, paramount is the skill and devotion of those who provide the service.
I am sure that hon. Members would not dissent from that sentiment. The circular goes on:


However relationships between those seeking and those providing the services in Wales can often be assisted by recognising the importance of the Welsh language to those whose first language it is…It has a particular relevance to certain groups of patients—the young and the elderly—who in some cases may have difficulty in making their wishes known in a second language — and the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
We recognise the problem of communication and the importance of easy communication in health matters. We also recognise that linguistic cirmcumstances differ throughout Wales.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I know about the circulars that have been issued by the Welsh Office over the years, but I was urging the Minister to get in touch with local authorities again to remind them that they should give more attention to the Welsh language among the elderly, the infirm and those in care.

Mr. Roberts: I will consider further what the hon. Gentleman has said. The circular that I quoted highlights the difficulties that would be faced in any attempt to introduce a blanket provision on the Welsh language qualification in employment. All our experience of appointments in Wales leads me to believe that it would be virtually impossible to devise a policy that caters for all eventualities that could arise.
To ensure fairness, every job has to be considered on an individual basis with due regard to all its requirements including the qualifications of applicants and the needs of those to be served, all of which have to be carefully defined and weighed to ensure that justice is seen to be done. That is very important: otherwise there is always the danger of a backlash. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) hinted at that.
Those of us who represent constituencies in the Welsh speaking parts of Wales can understand the feelings that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Caernarfon in the light of the tribunal's decision, particularly as those most directly involved are people who genuinely need the services of a local authority.
The fact that Gwynedd county council is responsible for an area which is essentially bilingual is an important factor in the delivery of services. I fully recognise that. The Gwynedd social services department therefore clearly has to plan its services with that in mind to be as effective as possible. It has to deal with a range of client groups, and individuals within those groups will prefer to speak in Welsh and the social services department has to take that into account. The need to ensure an adequate number of capable front line staff who are also fluent in Welsh is a natural consequence of the situation within the county. The social services department is concerned to ensure that the rights of individuals are fully respected in the planning and provision of services. It has to be borne in mind that social services work with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society who are often suffering great personal stress and anxiety when they come into contact with staff. This means that everybody who comes into contact with the social services would expect to be able to express their concern and needs in the language in which they feel most comfortable and are able to communicate most effectively. There is no question of denying such a right to anyone.
If I single out an example where the language is an important factor in the delivery of services, I do so only because recently I visited Antur Waunfawr in the hon.

Gentleman's constituency. This is a project whereby the mentally handicapped are preparing to lead more independent lives in a naturally Welsh speaking community which fully supports the venture. Clearly the support given by the county council to this project would reflect the linguistic nature of the area, and the people employed in the venture —not, incidentally, staff of the county council — reflect this as well. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I officially opened that venture—he was present—my remarks were almost entirely in Welsh because the audience was predominantly Welsh speaking. 
Of the population of Gwynedd, some 67 per cent. speak Welsh, and in overall terms this accounts for a quarter of Wales's Welsh speakers. Gwynedd has traditionally been in the forefront of developments in the use of the language, and this naturally extends to the county council's services. I understand that the social services front line staff are organised on the basis of the three main client groups of the elderly and physically handicapped, child care and mental health, and the use of the language clearly has an important part to play in delivering a service to individuals within each category.
It is, however, a matter for the county council itself to ensure that it is able to deliver the most effective service against this background. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the county council and what it needs to do. There is, of course, scope for further education and training to ensure that there are Welsh speaking people available to do jobs where Welsh may be considered essential.
The county council has to ensure that it recruits staff who are able to provide a good service and are abreast of current developments. Clearly the employment of qualified and experienced staff and ability to speak Welsh are relevant considerations in Gwynedd. However, the statutory obligation lies with the county council, and it is not for me to make detailed observations on the way the county carries out its duties.
It will interest the House to know that the Welsh Office has assisted the department of social theory and institutions at the Univeristy college of north Wales, Bangor, to set up a social work practice centre. One post within this centre will seek to identify and meet the special needs of social work within the Welsh cultural and linguistic setting of the area. I am pleased that, under the grants available for bilingual education under section 21 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1980, we have been able to assist financially with this project. This is a clear indication that I and my right hon. Friend fully appreciate the needs of training through the medium of the Welsh language in this particular field. Naturally one understands the initial public reaction to the tribunal's decisions, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that, although we are grateful for the debate, to seek to come to any conclusions about the possible broader implications of the decision at this stage is somewhat premature.
As I have said, the Race Relations Act clearly sets out the grounds on which it is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another in the area of employment. It also lays down exceptions to those grounds for genuine occupational reasons. Hon. Members would not expect me to interpret the provisions of the Race Relations Act—that is a matter for the courts, I explained the procedures


earlier. It would be totally inappropriate for a Minister to comment about the grounds of tribunal decisions, the terms of which I have not yet seen.
I can, however, assure hon. Members that if, having considered the written judgment of the tribunal, and in the light of any appeal that might be made and proceedings that may follow, there are issues which directly affect the well-being of a particular client group dependent upon a local authority for the provision of a service or if there are issues concerning the use of the Welsh language in general, I will naturally consider such matters carefully and consult my ministerial colleagues as necessary.
I hope that the originator of the debate and other hon. Members who have attended at this early hour and taken part will be satisfied with the assurance that I have just given.

Orders of the Day — Motor Industry

Mr.RogerKing: It is about two years ago that I had the pleasure of introducing a debate during a similar operation to the past 12 hours on the subject of the British motor industry. If my memory serves me right, I drew an early spot and the debate lasted three hours. It was noteworthy that so many colleagues attended because the debate started the right side of midnight.
I make no apology for introducing a similar, or even identical, subject this morning, because the British motor industry is our largest manufacturer. It employs more people than any other manufacturing industry. We could possibly say that it is our largest industry, including agriculture. Its importance to the country is substantial, and especially to the midlands, where the production of motor vehicles, components and accessories employs a great number of people.
The history of the industry is well documented, but it is a salutary reminder when one appreciates that in the late 1950s we were the second largest car producer in the world—second to the United States. Today we have slipped well down the league to about seventh or eighth in production capacity. More cars are made in the midlands than anywhere else in the country. We have examples of mass production at the Austin Rover plants and the small, but valuable, production of Jaguar cars at the other end of the market.
manufacturers—firms such as Luca, GKN, Tube Investments and Triplex — which are almost household names, not only in Britain but throughout the world. Indeed, seven of the country's top ten component makers are based in the midlands; the importance of the industry to that area is shown by that fact alone. About 40 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the industry involve people employed in Birmingham, and in the midlands as a whole, more than 50,000 jobs are involved with car production.
Considering the importance of the industry, one would hope that it would receive absolute priority in all forms of industrial planning and that Governments of all political persuasions would do their best to ensure its expansion and development. However, in many respects Government acted in an unhelpful way. In the 1950s, when production was substantial and we were number two in the world after America, the need to expand caused Governments of the time to dictate to the industry to where it should expand, and developments took place in the north-west of Scotland and South Wales, where plants for the production of components, cars and commercial vehicles were established.
It is clear in retrospect that that was a bad move, but at the time there was the problem of providing jobs for those areas. The rate of unemployment in the west midlands was so low that finding people to man the production lines involved taking the jobs outside the midlands area. Although the motor industry objected strongly at the time, because it felt that concentrating capacity in or near its home base was conducive to improved productivity, It had to accept the Government dictates of the day if it wanted to achieve the greater production that it needed.
The results were seen in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with lengthy production lines, sometimes as long as 300 miles between plants, and that only helped to hinder the development of the industry as it strove to compete against foreign domination. The incursion into western Europe by Japanese motor manufacturers began to take place in the early 1970s. They found an opening principally because the quality and design of many of our cars in production here left much to be desired.
We have always had the expertise to design cars which are technologically adventurous, and throughout the history of the industry we have produced many innovations. Possibly the most substantial was the advent of the Austin and Morris mini cars in 1959, when the introduction of front wheel drive in tiny mass-produced vehicles was something of an innovation. The design of those cars was highly innovative and set the trend; the vast majority of cars of under two litres are now produced with front wheel drive.
The trouble was that, while the design was good, its detailed execution was not, and the problems involved in producing vehicles to a quality and price to enable a profitable return to be made somehow did not occur in the way that the then British Motor Corporation hoped.
Many other United Kingdom motor manufacturers tried to emulate that design process. The old Rootes Group produced a rival to the mini that was called the Hillman Imp, which turned the Issigonis theory on its face and put the engine in the back of the car. The car was well received by the motoring press and the public initially, but flaws in quality control virtually condemned the car to languish until its demise 10 years later as an also-ran. That was the reaction of the motoring public.
The problem of providing cars for the purchaser that he could use with the utmost reliability was one that the Japanese were able to overcome. Their cars were not adventurous—they had no technological advantages over our indigenous products—but they had quality and reliability. Once the Japanese industry gained a foothold in Britain and a reputation, and in Europe generally, they were able to retain it. The Japanese are now foremost in design innovation and it cannot be said that they are merely copying the West. They are playing their part in pushing back the frontiers of technology in car design.
Nowadays we tend to refer to the European car market and not the United Kingdom market. The 
 result of joining the European Community is that we must look to a wider area of car production, and in western Europe the capacity of car factories exceeds the number of sales that are likely to be gained during a 12-month period by about 2·5 million vehicles. This over-capacity is not helped by the number of vehicles that are imported into western Europe, some from the Comecon countries and many from Japan.
Jobs in industry depend upon our industry providing products that will enjoy design acceptance—in other words, products that the public will want — and a recognition of quality. Much has changed over the past 10 years or so as the industry has realised that to get the employment and the profits that it requires, it must meet the competition head on and produce the vehicles that the public want to buy. In the west midlands, that realisation is translated into jobs and prosperity for the region.
The Longbridge car plant in my constituency has experienced improvements in productivity and rationalisation over the past five or six years. The plant had struggled on for many years with a large work force—at one time 

there were about 21,000 employees. It produced cars of questionable quality, design and market acceptance. I used to work there, so I can vouch for what I have said. The advent of the BL corporate plan and the leadership of Michael Edwardes, as he then was, caused the management drastically to rethink. That was borne of necessity because technically BLMC, as it then was, was bankrupt as a result of it being unable to sell cars in the numbers that would enable it to embark on an investment programme to produce new models. We faced the challenge of bringing the industry into the latter part of the 20th century.
The corporate plan set out the development of a new range of cars and Longbridge has seen the development of the Metro over the past four years. It is an outstanding example of what the British car industry can achieve. That is true of design and production capabilities and the capability of the work force. The number of cars turned out per man per year has risen substantially. At Austin Rover the number has increased from five in 1979 to 14 in 1984. Taking just the Metro line at the Longbridge plant, the number has increased to 50 per man per year, and the aim is to achieve 60 per man per year.
Much of this improvement has resulted from automation. This is an outstanding example of how awork force has come to terms with the challenge of modern production facilities as the company has sought to meet the challenge, from not only Britain but overseas in producing cars for the world market.
The position of the other manufacturers is more complex. The other major manufacturers are owned by multinational companies. Vauxhall is owned by General Motors and Ford is a company in its own right. They have sought to develop the "world car" concept, which has meant that design and development have to a large extent taken place outside Britain. Much of the production capacity of those companies has been taken over in producing cars from kit form and certain components. Other components are imported from European factories.
The manufacture of components in Britain has decreased. The overall United Kingdom content of cars has fallen considerably, and this is certainly the case with Vauxhall. Some observers say that only 22 per cent. of Vauxhall can genuinely be said to be United Kingdom sourced. Of course, this is not exactly helping the British motor industry, especially the component industry. We must ask the multinationals whether this trend will continue or whether they will encourage more home production. This is a timely reminder, as Vauxhall is not a dwindling force on the United Kingdom Market. It is a formidable company which, over the past three years, has increased market penetration to 15 or 16 per cent., and at times to even higher levels. Its Cavalier model has been in the top three places since it was first produced. Most of the components of that car are imported.
Will this policy continue? Do the Government believe that they should discourage the element of multinational content and encourage British manufacturers to provide many of the necessary components? Why does the glass for cars have to come from overseas? Glass is extremely heavy and difficult to transport. There are British glass manufacturers. Given the volume of imports, I should have thought that it was in order for British manufacturers to produce the glass needed for Vauxhall cars.
There may well be cost and production reasons for importing glass from the continent. For how long will we


put up with this non-commitment to United Kingdom component suppliers while Vauxhall occupies such a prominent place on the market? 
Job opportunities in the motor industry have dwindled over the years, although I am happy to report that in Longbridge extra jobs have been created as a result of automation, better products and a step-up in production and sales. During the past 18 months, about 2,000 people have been taken on, 1,400 of whom are in new jobs and 600 of whom have replaced those who have left. The present labour force in that complex now numbers about 10,500, and about 20 per cent. of it was not employed by the company two years ago. Therefore, substantial job opportunities are available in the motor industry, which we wish to encourage.
The main problems facing the industry are a lack of customer demand, or too many manufacturers trying to satisfy that customer demand. The many ways in which demand for cars could be increased have been trotted out before, but I make no apology for mentioning them again.
The motor car is the only product to attract a special rate of tax. Both VAT and the 10 per cent. car tax, which was introduced as a temporary measure over 10 years ago and remained ever since, are added to the price. One cannot understand why the car has remained the one recipient of that special tax. Neither Japanese videos, Taiwanese radios nor any other product is taxed in that way. The British motor industry cannot understand why that extra tax should be levied, which artificially increases the price of a car.
The industry has made in clear that if that tax were removed, it could make up the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by increased sales and production. It has been argued that if the 10 per cent. car tax were removed, importers would take up the possible extra sale of 100,000 cars a year. Certainly that may have been true some years ago, but that is no longer the case with the resuscitation of Austin Rover as a formidable member of the manufacturing clientele that provide bread and butter cars. Austin Rover could well take the lion's share of the extra sales. It is up to the Chancellor to accept the challenge put to him by the motor industry that over three years the equivalent of that 10 per cent. special car tax will flow back into his coffers as a result of increased sales. Furthermore, the increased sales will bring an improvement in employment prospects and therefore a net gain from the unemployed seeking employment in the car industry.
The Chancellor could consider other aspects, such as VAT on company cars, which affects only a modest number of purchasers. In many cases the company car is a business tool. One must distinguish between company cars provided as a perk and not used for company business, and those which are a business tool, and which a sales or engineering representative, for example, may use in his job visiting customers and getting orders. It is as much a tool of his business as a desk top computer, a telephone or a desk. Yet the business can reclaim the VAT on all those items except the genuine company car. It seems to be grossly unfair that the car should be singled out for this special treatment, and one hopes that the Chancellor will look benevolently upon the genuine company car.
There is no difficulty in sorting out a genuine company car and a company perk. We already do that in regard to

the cut-off point for tax on the size of car that a company provides to an employee. For example, on a car that is more than 1800 cc, one's personal tax liability is greater than it is under 1800 cc. That cut-off point seems to have been decided arbitrarily by someone. However, if a person travels 18,000 miles on company business, he qualifies for a reduction in personal tax liability because he is a genuine company car user. If a person does more than 18,000 miles on company business, the car might well be eligible for a VAT reduction, as it is obviously being used in a genuine company way.
I look to the Chancellor to cut VAT and to have a look at the personal cut-off point. I am not ashamed to admit that Austin Rover is disadvantaged by the 1800 cc limit. It does not have an engine that comes into that bracket. In that area, its engine sizes are 1·6 litres and just under 2 litres. Many European manufacturers and the other so-called United Kingdom manufacturers—General Motors and Ford—have produced engines that fit just under the 1·8 litre level, and they are brought in from many continental factories.
If, for once, we could be patriotic, wave the flag and stimulate the British element of our industry, at a stroke the Chancellor could raise the cut-off point for personal tax liability from 1800 cc to 2 litres. That would hurt no one. It would not hurt Ford or GM, who would continue to make 1·8-litre cars quite satisfactorily. But it would help Austin Rover to find an extra market for its 2-litre cars, which on a company basis is at present not so attractive as the 1·8-litre competitor cars. One hopes that the Chancellor will try to stimulate interest and business in the motor industry by adopting some of these modest measures.
The Government are a substantial purchaser of cars. It appears that over the last few years much of their purchasing has been of continentally derived vehicles. For example, the policy of the Ministry of Defence has been to buy Vauxhall Cavaliers in very large numbers —2,000 to 3,000 over the last 18 months alone. Do not the Government have a buying policy which, in addition to seeking the right product at competitive prices, asks manufacturers about the United Kingdom content of the product that they wish to supply? I hope that tender documents in future will request the United Kingdom content of the product being offered to Ministries.
Some observers would say that the Cavalier languishes at around 22 per cent. United Kingdom content, but it is no more than 50 per cent. even on the most optimistic assertion. The Montego has a 92 per cent. United Kingdom content, but at present is not purchased by any Ministry. Fortunately, the cars that we see in New Palace Yard are totally British in content. In addition to the Chancellor's bringing about some fiscal encouragement for the industry, one would hope that the Government generally would continue to back it with hard cash by buying the products that are made largely in this country, and insisting that manufacturers tell them how much of the product is made in this country.
One of the challenges that faces western Europe is the desire of member states to clean up car exhaust systems, and the extra cost that that is likely to mean to the European and British motor industry. With the very substantial vehicle population moving about Europe, the degree of pollution varies according to the state of the car engine and how well it has been maintained.
The determination by the environmentalists to clean up the car exhaust systems is in many people's eyes an encouraging step forward. I will not say that car exhausts should not be cleaned up, because I think that much work can be done. The Germans in particular seem to have taken a number of panic measures in order to protect their forests, which they believe their motor industry and cars are destroying.
Of course, none of that can be proved beyond all shadow of doubt, but the very substantial presence of the environmentalists in Germany—the so-called Greens—has ensured the instigation of legislation on a European bais on the quality of car exhaust emissions. The result has been the EC arriving at stringent plans. This will mean a substantial extra cost to motor manufacturers throughout Europe.
Not many motor manufacturers in Europe are operating profitably at present, certainly none in France. Some motor conpanies will get Government assistance. The French Government will bail out Renault, giving it interest-free loans. It will no doubt eventually provide cars that will meet the standards. In our own country the challenge facing Austin Rover is to produce cars using money borrowed from the market place, albeit underwritten by the Government but paying substantial interest rates as well.
Many of the requirements laid down by the EEC are hard to meet with presently available technology. Austin Rover has set its heart on the development of a lean burn engine, an engine that uses more air per element of petrol than is used currently, and a cleaner exhaust is the result. But since the EEC directives set down slightly stricter standards, the alternative method of cleaning up exhaust emissions, the exhaust catalyst, will have to be used. That will add substantially to the price of a car, as well as to the running costs. It has been estimated that about a 10 per cent. power loss will be involved, so that an extra 10 per cent. consumption of fuel can be expected if bread and butter saloons use a catalyst.
When BL laid down its corporate plan envisaging £1·8 billion expansion over five years, it included an element for improving its vehicle exhaust emission to a standard acceptable under the EEC directive arrived at on 20 March this year. Since then a much more stringent directive has been introduced, and one wonders how much extra cost will be involved, principally by Austin Rover, to meet the standards laid down in that directive. That cost was not actually included in the corporate plan. I have heard mention of sums as high as £200 million as the extra cost of cleaning up exhaust emissions.
More to the point is the fact that the directive on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer lifted his reserve and which we assumed to be the directive involved is actually subject to a number of technical alterations. I would welcome a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister on this point. What element of technical alteration is allowed under that directive? I know that much of it is confidential negotiating, but a set of rules is laid down by the directive. We have lifted our reserve on them. Does that mean that we have accepted that requirement and those regulations, or does it mean that we have sort of accepted them but are able to negotiate large elements? The British motor industry, certainly Austin Rover, would like to know, because time rolls on and commitments have to be made

in terms of money and engineering time. To delay for long means that the industry will find it ever more difficult to meet the time scales laid down by the EEC.
One element that is discouraging the British motor industry is the level of Spanish competition. That is an old issue, which has been debated many times in the House, but it is still extremely relevant. Indeed, it is more relevant now than it has been over the past few years. Spanish ears are coming into the country as a result of the dispersal of motor manufacturers to Spain, where labour costs are sometimes 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. below ours. As the industry has developed—it is now exceeding ours in the total number of cars produced—much of that production has been exported throughout Europe, principally to this country. Every Vauxall Nova that is sold in this country is Spanish-built and an increasing number of Ford Fiestas are similarly assembled in and brought into this country from Spain.
In addition, Spain has its indigenous car manufacturer, SEAT, which is now busily about to launch its product range into the United Kingdom market, commencing in October this year. A dealer network is already being set up and cars have been tested and developed and found to be extremely competitive. In fact the engine was designed by Porsche, which is a household name for quality of engine design. Therefore, it is not like a cheap east European car, but is an extremely competitive product in price, quality and design innovation.
The problem with Spain is that she has set up import tariffs to prevent us from sending our products over there in any quantity, and we have virtually no import tariffs against Spanish products coming into this country—the legacy of the 1970–71 agreement with the then EEC, when Spain was largely an agricultural country. She had no industry. The EEC felt that her industry should be encouraged. The result is that, as that industry has been encouraged and is developing into a formidable motor industry, we have the one-sided arrangement whereby I and most motor forecasters predict that about 130,000 Spanish-derived cars will come into the country in 1986 compared with about 3,000 British cars going back to Spain. That is deplorable, because many of those Spanish cars are competing with our home-produced products.
Those who buy a SEAT in this country and who handle SEAT cars will be acting unpatriotically. There is no need for the company to have a presence in this market place. The only way that we should like SEAT to come into this country is if we could send one of our cars to Spain in exchange for one SEAT coming to this country. Those who buy SEAT cars from October onwards had better be aware that when they do so, they are buying people in this country out of a job. That is what it amounts to. They need to think carefully, however attractive the product might appear, that it represents a one-sided trading system and a hammer blow to the British motor industry. I hope that every dealer will be boycotted and that nobody will buy SEAT cars until Spain voluntarily allows us a fighting chance to sell our cars in the Spanish market.
The motor industry has to get over many little obstacles. One is the registration suffix or prefix. It is happening again this year with the C registration. Factories work overtime so that there is an enormous park of cars of all colours and specifications and then the market dives steeply after 1 August to the dead month of September. No other European country presents its motor industry with such a Becher's brook of an obstacle. It was introduced at


the request of the motor industry which felt that it would be better to have two peaks, the other being at the end of the year.
United Kingdom manufacturers met between 70 and 75 per cent. of home demand then and were able to cope with that hiccough in sales. They now meet about 42 per cent. of home demand. Importers simply ask foreign factories to turn production away from their home markets when everyone is on holiday and not in a car-buying mood to the United Kingdom market, where everyone is on holiday but in a car-buying mood. Importers are encouraged to dump in Britain at a time most convenient to them as European sales are in a trough. Our manufacturers have to gear up production every year for the peak and then face terrible problems afterwards.
Who will seize the opportunity to do away with the registration suffix or prefix? The Department of Trade and Industry? The Department of Transport? There is no reason why we could not be issued with a permanent number plate. Regular sales throughout the year would help our motor industry enormously. The troughs also cause havoc for the myriad component manufacturers. We need a Lord Beaverbrook of the motor industry. We must encourage the industry to produce and to expand the market for its products. Trading opportunities with other countries must be fair. Legislation affecting the industry should not cause it delay and expense. The industry is a major source of employment and prosperity. It must be clear that if we do not ensure that what we buy is made in the United Kingdom, we cannot be blamed for job losses. "Buy British" is a hack cliché, but never has it meant so much as it means in the motor industry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: After a long day and a long night I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the problems that face British Leyland at Bathgate, but before doing so I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who has performed a service to the house, and to raise three matters.
First, I echo his question about public purchasing. Are we sure that every Government Department asks about the United Kingdom content not only of cars but of other vehicles? Of one thing we can be quite certain that in France it is inconceivable that any public authority would buy other than French. The same is true of West Germany and of every other country in the world. The British tend to be ultra-silly about this. If everybody else follows such a policy, it is about time that we began to look after our own interests. From now on, therefore, everybody should ask about the United Kingdom content of vehicles.
I also echo the hon. Gentleman's question about exhaust emissions and exhaust regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and I went to Uxbridge a fortnight ago to see Mr. David Andrews and Mr. Les Wharton, the managing director of Leyland vehicles, in relation to Bathgate. It would serve no purpose to deal in detail with what they said about engines, but they told us that the emission regulations, for which the House of Commons is indirectly responsible, made their problems infinitely more difficult. We may have to develop new technology, but, as the hon. Member for Northfield said, what do the Government think about the

time scale within which this country is supposed to operate in terms of the European Community regulations? And what is the Government's policy on emissions? Do we think that we are being fairly treated? In particular, has the Minister anything to say about the particular problem for British Leyland of the emission regulations as they will effect the good engine that is still made at Bathgate? 
Thirdly, may I follow up the hon. Gentleman's question about Spain. He referred to the dealer network. I am reluctant to call anybody unpatriotic, but there will be extremely sad consequences for well established dealers. I shall mention just two Tennants and Carmichael Baxter. Do the Government have a policy in relation to Spanish entry laws, which will alter the position, and also in relation to our entry into the Spanish market? These are highly relevant questions.
The House will excuse me for returning to the problem at Bathgate. It is still the largest machine shop in Europe. Ministers, and certainly the Scottish Office, acknowledge the very responsible leadership of Jim Swan and the joint shop stewards committee. It is also acknowledged that the engine is a good product and that other good products are made at Bathgate, However, it is faced with a very considerable problem and the Minister knows what it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston and I were most courteously received by David Andrews and Les Wharton, and we have an invitation to return any time we wish. This is part of a dialogue in what I hope will be a rescue operation.
My specific questions this morning are as follows. Is the Department of Trade and Industry prepared to take part in the rejuvenated working party, which involves the Scottish Office, the Bathgate area support enterprises group—under the leadership of Michael Fass and Bob Mears—and West Lothian district council? The Scottish Office, especially Mr. Gavin McCrone, is working very hard on this. Do the schemes put forward by BASE interest the Department of Trade and Industry? 
An especially difficult problem in relation to the British Leyland corporate plan for the future is whether British Leyland, should some phoenix arise, will be prepared to grant manufacturing rights on regional terms to anyone who can retain a manufacturing capacity at the Bathgate site. After all, this is the heart of industry in central Scotland. I am not one for going over history. but I should tell the Minister with responsibility for the west midlands that, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a decision of a Tory Cabinet—it was the Macmillan Government—against the wishes of Sir George Harriman, to whom I have talked, and other leaders of the motor industry, brought tractor manufacture and vehicle manufacture to Bathgate. It is not right, after so much money has been raised locally through the district council and the community, for the Government to wash their hands of the matter. When Mr. Les Wharton says, "We are in the business of truck manufacture, and others must look after the community," I understand what he means; but there are governmental responsibilities in this. Although Leyland may say, "We are in the business of truck manufacture", nevertheless, morally and otherwise, there are overwhelming reasons why the Government should be deeply involved.
Will the Minister say this morning that his Department will support the working party and the schemes put forward by the shop stewards and by BASE? He will discover that there is much good will among his ministerial colleagues and officials at the Scottish Office.
I have constantly raised with the Minister for Overseas Development the question of trucks for the Sudan and Ethiopia. On his return from Ethiopia, the Minister told me that one problem is that, in east Africa, they are so committed to Mercedes and Fiat that it is doubtful whether the Ethiopian authorities want Leyland trucks. There are £40 million worth of good trucks sitting in the car park at Bathgate, many of which would be highly suitable for east Africa. Could there be proper discussions with Leyland and with the aid authorities to discover whether, if problems arise with the supply of spare parts, Britain could do something to alleviate the immediate problem? 
I understand what the Minister for Overseas Development told me, but it is not beyond human wit and governmental will to overcome that problem. The British commercial vehicle industry has a considerable potential contribution to make to the desperate need for transport in the developing countries of Sahel Africa.
I would like the Minister's comments on all those points, if possible, by letter or by meeting. I would ask especially that senior officials of the Department of Trade and Industry should be available in August to take part in the ongoing discussions in and around Bathgate.

Mr. Alan Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on pursuing, as he always does, the campaign to ensure that Ministers are fully aware of the problems facing Bathgate and the opportunities available through the truck capacity that is standing idle.
There is a growing consensus on the essential need for us to sustain a British-controlled capability in the car industry. In the late 1960s the Labour Government undertook the saving of the collapsing British Leyland. We were berated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) for daring to intervene with public funds to save the company. That was despite the fact that so many other firms and jobs depended on the survival of the company. One can welcome the conversion, and say that we are glad that at last the Conservative party has recognised what we were advocating in the 1970s. We had to put up with several years of diatribe for doing something that nearly everybody would now recognise as an essential service. That is particularly true with regard to the number of jobs. The industry has over 180,000 jobs, and over 500,000 dependent jobs. As the hon. Member for Northfield said, it sustains many other jobs in the glass, rubber, steel and other sectors.
The industry is critically important to the technological future because we need its demands for, for example, plastics and electronics if we are to stay in the forefront of those industries. It is astonishing that there was ever any doubt in the mind of the Conservative party about the desirability of saving British Leyland.
The collapse of BL was the ultimate saga in the collapse of private enterprise in the car industry. British Leyland became the dustbin of the car industry. Every time a private firm ran into difficulties, the automatic idea was, "Add it on to British Leyland." As a result, an unplanned managerial nightmare, which we had to unravel, arose

from this unplanned conglomerate and the residue of the collapsing private sector industry in the car sector in the United Kingdom.
Our industry has not been helped by the somewhat erratic and eccentric policies pursued by the Government in relation to the pound and interest rates. It is anomalous that we have high interest rates to keep up the value of sterling, thereby putting our industry at the maximum disadvantage, while the Japanese are using all their efforts to keep the yen low to keep their industry at an advantage in world trade.
It is hardly surprising that our industry has lost so substantially, particularly when it is then crippled by the interest rates that are being used to create the prejudicial atmosphere for sterling in which our industry has to export and fight import penetration. It is hardly surprising that while exports are £4 billion, they are less than half the level at which they stood 10 years ago.
The hon. Member for Northfield is right to emphasise, as we all are, that all the import penetration since 1974 has not been the failure of our indigenous car industry to compete. Nearly all the import penetration has been as a result of the deliberate self-interested managerial decisions of Ford and General Motors. We should not apologise for rubbing the noses of these companies every possible time into the fact that here investment policy has been having a damaging effect on the pattern and structure of the industry. That has added to a great many of the uncertainties we face.
In the early 1970s, Henry Ford said there would never again be any investment in the United Kingdom. I was lucky enough to be involved in the negotiations to get the Bridgend engine operation. That was at the end of the 1970s and the first break from the personal policy decision of one man who had dominated the investment patterns of Ford for most of that decade. It is also useful to emphasise, as the hon. Gentleman did, that models such as the Nova and the Fiesta are providing substantial numbers of jobs for overseas workers rather than for British workers.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow correctly highlighted the ridiculous situation which is allowed to continue in relation to Spain. One of the great scandals of the car industry is that Spain, with well developed and sophisticated high technology, has been able to impose penal tariffs on imports from Britain and the rest of the Common Market, while Spain has free access to those markets. As the hon. Gentleman said, Spanish penetration into this country next year will be over 100,000 units. When one relates that to the total production of British Leyland, one sees what is happening to sabotage our own car industry.
In 1979 at a TUC seminar in Wales on microtechnology, one of the senior trade unionists talked about the new technology and described how we would have to encompass it. He made the point that he and a deputation of trade unionists had just been to Spain, and he said at that time:
Let us be honest. There are Valencia people straight out of the lemon fields who are producing a better quality car using the latest technology than we can produce anywhere in the United Kingdom.
That high technology Spanish industry has been allowed to pirate the trade desperately needed by our own industry. For General Motors to be operating with a 22 per cent. UK content is a scandal. That company has had major Government assistance over the years and expects a high


proportion of the British market and wants free access to it. On the other hand, we do not have free access to its productive plans and capability. It is strange to think that General Motors would be the first to howl if this or any Government were to suggest they were going to allow a Japanese company to establish an operation in this country with an as low a British content as GM by its policies takes as its right to insult us with. It has actually removed its design and research and development base from this country.
The points made by hon. Members about public purchasing are valid. I know the difficulties and I do not pretend it is all that easy. We tend to play a straight and honest game when it comes to public purchasing. I remember an occasion when I tried to get the Home Office to intervene with police forces which were buying BMWs. "Oh no," said the Home Office, "It is absolutely imperative that each police force has complete discretion to decide which model of motor cycle or motor car is suitable for its own area. They know their areas best and must be given freedom of choice." No such freedom of choice is allowed to police forces anywhere else in the world.
I was disturbed as, I am sure, was the Minister, when the managing director of BL Technology, British Leyland's research and development unit, told the press earlier this year that because of lack of investment, inadequate Government support and a dearth of designers, engineers and other technologists, we were falling so far behind in R and D capability that we may already be "below the critical level." I am sure that the Minister agrees that if that is true, we need to remedy the situation. The managing director suggested that there were already few designers left in the United Kingdom who were capable of producing an automatic gearbox and that there would be no engine design capability left in Britain within a decade. I hope that the recent announcements about BL will help to avoid that possibility. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what effect they will have on sustaining our capability.
We welcome the Ford engine project. I am sure that it is particularly welcomed in Dagenham. Can the Minister tell us whether that will have any R and D benefits?
It was disturbing to learn that Jaguar, one of our prestige companies, still has difficulty in recruiting engineers at salaries of up to £20,000 to carry out expansion of output and work on the new model. I suppose that that is hardly surprising when we realise that we produce half as many engineers—as a percentage of the relevant age group—as do the Japanese. When I became a Minister and inherited the problems of the British motorcycle industry I found that the Japanese had more graduate engineers employed in R and D than we had workers employed in the production of motorcycles. Private enterprise lived on the seed corn and put nothing back into the industry. That industry no longer exists in this country.
There is a shortage not only of engineers but of funding, certainly compared with other countries. The managing director of BL Technology said:
It is likely now that total output in research and development spending in the UK motor industry has fallen to below £200 million".

But about 95 per cent. of that is new model work. In other words, only about 5 per cent.—£10 million—is going into truly original research.
Our record of Government support is worrying. The United States Government are putting £1 billion of support into R and D in their motor industry, but the figure in the United Kingdom falls short of £3 million. Small wonder that we are way behind the Japanese, the West Germans and the Americans in R and D spending.
Even if the Government decide to increase the funding of R and D work in the motor industry, we shall remain at the whim of decisions taken overseas. It is significant that the only British controlled unit, BL, has a 92 per cent. domestic content, whereas the American controlled General Motors has a derisory 22 per cent. We are unique in the extent to which we have allowed ourselves to become dependent on overseas decision-makers in the industry. Virtually 60 per cent. of British car production is controlled by the Americans or elsewhere overseas. This compares with only 30 per cent. in Germany, less than 5 per cent. in France and the United States and nil in Japan and Italy. It is small wonder that our components manufacturers feel that they are particularly vulnerable when they are dependent on the vagaries and uncertainties of tactical decisions taken by men still lingering in the shadow of the now dead world car concept in Detroit and other overseas centres.
With regard to sustaining the British control capability, at least the new technology has made this easier. It has invalidated the world car approach, and means that a medium-sized firm such as BL has now an excellent chance of competing successfully.
However, I accept completely, as I think the industry does, that R and D is an area in which the economies of scale are still a significant factor, and it is difficult for a medium-sized firm to sustain within itself the full R and D capability that is needed.
The trend towards a technical relationship with a strong overseas partner such as Honda therefore makes sense, but in terms of R and D only. We do not want to see a closer integration, with BL slipping along the same path that was taken by Ford and General Motors, or decisions being taken overseas, which, although no doubt very sensible and in the interests of the overseas board of directors, are not in the interests of British industry, and the British car industry in particular.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I join Labour Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for providing the House with an opportunity to debate again, and perhaps at a significant moment, the future of the British motor industry.
Before I deal with the major themes that have run through the debate, may I say that I will of course take up each of the points and queries that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. I shall also refer the repeated but relevant recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield on company car tax, reclaimable VAT on company cars, the tax break point and whether there should be an 1800 cc or a 2000 cc cut-off point for higher level of personal tax liability and, indeed, the


Government's purchasing policy, to the attention of my right hon. Friends not only in the Treasury but, in one particular case, in the Ministry of Defence.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a thoughtful and considered speech, and identified a number of areas on which there is agreement in the House. In one area, he may inadvertently have introduced a little controversy. He asserted that BL and the British motor industry generally may be denying itself, or may be being denied, the resources to involve itself in the leading edge technologies and the development of them as they apply to the motor industry.
It may be a little presumptous for me to offer an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman on sombody else's behalf, but a Mr. Roy Axe, in Canley, Coventry, who heads the BL design team, has a formidable group of young designers working round him using the best hardware and software, some of it developed by BL systems. I know that they would be delighted to host the right hon. Gentleman. While he was there, I would be delighted to take him to Warwick university to meet Professor Bhattacharyya who has implemented some very good work in manufacturing systems engineering, not just for BL but for others. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he has just met him, I shall withdraw the invitation.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have had invitations, but I am grateful to the Minister. It is interesting that the very points that I made about capability were made by the managing director of BL's research arm, Mr. Harry Sheron. That was reported in the Financial Times on 6 March.

Mr. Butcher: That gentleman may have had his own reasons for making those comments, but I think that they would be challenged by people both outside and inside the industry. There are people within BL who would demonstrate that the company is making very big strides, especially in manufacturing systems engineering and in bringing forward the very latest design techniques.
On the shortage of engineers, perhaps aptly, later today my Department will be issuing the final report on skills shortages as they affect particularly the areas of high added value engineering. There are also shortages in the information technology industry. Of course there are shortages and, of course, the Government must do their bit to help resolve that, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced an additional £43 million of expenditure in that area.
I am sure that the House will remember that when Jaguar wanted to take on a number of apprentices greater than its immediate requirements, it was the local trade unions who said that they would not look well on that because the additional apprentices would be paid at below the historic rate, although the rates of pay would have been equivalent to those paid to German apprentices. Therefore, we each have our responsibilities to face when we try to remedy the problems of skills shortages and especially when we try to obtain more, relevant and high value work experience for our young people—the future engineers in the automotive industry.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in a helpful and courteous speech, asked for a number of assurances and for attention to two or three areas. He joined my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield in requesting the Government to ensure that our public

purchasing is enlightened, and whereas it might have to be GATT and EEC-proof, we should at least recognise enlightened purchasing which would involve implementing policies on purchasing that make it more likely that one is buying British because those British products have become the best.
There is a happy alliance between the needs of the customer to obtain value for money. By using proper and close relationships with buyer and supplier, we can ensure that suppliers can improve their performance over the medium and long term and, therefore, on merit justify the decision to buy British.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bathgate area support enterprise group—BASE. He will recall that we have said that in the first instance it would be a matter for my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Scottish Office. There is an industry Minister in that office. In the first instance —not because we wish to be negative or unhelpful—we say that it is their responsibility to build those bridges, and any Minister welcomes efforts at self-help and developments which involve co-operation between the public and private sectors to try to produce jobs in areas such as Bathgate where structural change has taken place. That is the biggest machine shop in the United Kingdom and there are undoubted skills on that site which everybody wishes to see deployed to the fullest possible extent.
I visited the Sudan three and a half years ago and at that time there were many British trucks on the roads, although they were not BL trucks. I shall communicate to the Minister for Overseas Development, who will be participating in a later debate, the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
We have been discussing what is a job creation programme. On many occasions in the House we discuss job creation. But the job creation programme that could have the most dramatic impact on our economy and on the unemployment queues is that programme which results in an increase in Britain's share of world trade in manufactures. Hon. Members may be familiar with the figures. In 1964, the United Kingdom had about 14 per cent. of the world's share of trade. By 1979 it had gone down to 8 per cent. The CBI tells us that each 1 per cent. represents 250,000 jobs. Thus, in one way or another, our economy was so weakened during that period that, in effect, we exported 1·5 million British jobs. To get back a significant proportion of those exported jobs would indeed make major inroads into the numbers unemployed.
In the British motor industry we have BL employing 81,000 people; Ford, 57,300; Vauxhall, 20,053; and Talbot, 7,109. They together account for over 90 per cent. of car and commercial vehicle manufacture in the UK. We have a number of independent and specialist manufacturers in both sectors, including Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, Lotus, TVR, and Reliant. The components industry, to which hon. Members have referred, includes large multinational companies such as Lucas and GKN and numerous small specialist companies, in all employing about 200,000 people. In the main, the motor industry provides the bulk of its employment in the west midlands and south-east regions.
The good health of the industry, with an increase in its share of the domestic market and an improvement in exports, could bring about a healthy increase in the number of jobs available in manufacturing industry generally. When we discuss job creation, we should ask ourselves what a certain Government measure or request


to the Government would do for our competitiveness in our endevour to increase our share of world trade and, therefore, increase the number of jobs in the economy.
We are coming up to the peak buying period for cars. At this time somebody in the House usually appeals to the nation's consumers to buy British. This time there is more reason than ever for British consumers to note the rapid improvement in the quality of Britsh cars and in the level of productivity of our car plants—there has been a truly dramatic increase, particularly at Longbridge — to examine the changes that have taken place on the shop floor and in the style and professionalism of management. It is surely correct for us to say that those who are really concerned about job creation, which includes the vast majority of the public, should think hard, if they are exercising a buying decision, about which car to buy with a new registration plate attached to it. I know that by saying that there will be a few people who will put pen to paper immediately to tell me, "I bought British, but the car that I bought was of poor quality, it did not perform and it was a rogue. I shall never buy British again." I know the contents of such letters almost by heart. I shall not report the name of my most famous correspondent, but there is a solicitor in Bristol who seems to enjoy responding to any exhortation to buy British. I take the opportunity of advising him that I have noted his past letters. I hope that he no longer has reason to complain about the quality of his car.
There has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of British produced cars. It is time for consumers to look again at British products in the interests of consumer satisfaction and in the broader issues of the British economy. In so many respects, we have a good story to tell.
The level of import penetration in our markets is uncomfortably high. That is in part a consequence of our recent industrial history. For a number of reasons, the industry failed to meet the needs of the consumer. This has been the not unexpected consequence of a more general industrial malaise. There has been too much capacity across Europe and the industry has been chasing too few customers, which has resulted in disorderly and unprofitable levels of pricing. Our component suppliers and assemblers are starting to perform again. They have re-entered the competitive race and they are matching our competitors on quality and price.
I know that the House will not wish me to delay it for too long. However, I shall respond to the comments made about multinationals. It is common ground between the Government and the multinational vehicle producers that it is necessary for a better balance to be struck between what these companies sell in the United Kingdom and what they manufacture or source here. This applies as much to components and materials as to complete vehicles. In order to encourage an improved balance, we have had and are continuing to have meetings with senior management at Ford, Vauxhall and Talbot to get across our message of concern and I hope that the companies are now aware of the seriousness of our intent.
I shall take the three companies in turn. A quiet revolution has taken place at Talbot. It has declared its intention to manufacture a significant proportion of its new mid-range model, the C28. at its Ryton plant,

commencing at the end of the year. I welcome that. We welcome the continuation of the contract with Iran, which is still extremely significant.
Ford is committed to raising the British-built share of its car sales in the United Kingdom although much depends on how successful it is in improving the performance of its car plants in Britain. In the past three years, the contribution from Ford's British assembly plants has increased from 51·6 per cent. to 57·3 per cent., but if Ford could achieve full utilisation of its installed capacity in Britain, the percentage would rise significantly. At present, the United Kingdom content of Ford cars built in Britain averages 80 per cent. and the overall EEC content of its cars averages 92 per cent. Ford also makes in Britain all its trucks, tractors and Escort vans for the whole of Europe and exports large volumes of engines and other major components to Continental plants. Recently announced plans for the manufacture of new engines at Dagenham and transmissions at Halewood are important in this context and I applaud them.
I am encouraged by Vauxhall's recent concern with respect to broad balance and in particular by the fact that it has set up a high level task force covering General Motors' operations in Europe as well as in the United Kingdom. The function of this task force is to investigate ways of improving GM's performance with regard to United Kingdom sourcing. The Government expect that the task force will arrive at positive recommendations for improving the current state of affairs by which Vauxhall produces here less than half the cars that it sells in the United Kingdom. Even in those cars, the average United Kingdom content does no more than hover around 50 per cent. The Government look to Vauxhall to support its declarations of intent with positive demonstrations of its determination to move in the right direction. I hope very much that these demonstrations will be forthcoming. I know that the. fleet buyers in particular will follow these developments with great interest.
The message is clear. The companies, wherever they have not done so, need to attain international levels of competitiveness. Once that is achieved, the United Kingdom will look for the same contribution in terms of investment and jobs as has been diverted in the past, to locations abroad. The contribution of the multinationals must be commensurate with the gains that they derive from our markets.
Of course, the Government seek to take a lead in our public purchasing policies by encouraging all major public purchasers to think carefully about the local content of vehicles before buying them. Individual consumers can also contribute to the future of the vehicle industry.
Within Europe, I know that our trading terms with Spain, especially the imbalance in the vehicle sector, has been a deep grievance throughout the industry. As hon. Members are aware, this problem originated in the agreement between Spain and the Community which was signed in 1970, before we were even Community members. We have now addressed this problem under the terms of accession of Spain to the Community.
There are three principal measures that should be helpful. First, all the Spanish import duties against our cars will be phased out over seven years, and one half of that cut will be in the first three years. Secondly, Spain will be required to impose VAT, rather than her present tax regime for imported cars, from 1 January 1986. This will lessen discrimination against imports——

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19)—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Agriculture (scotland)

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that hon. Members welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, albeit at this early hour. People realise that this is a critical time for Scottish agriculture. Agriculture in Scotland and throughout the Community can be said to be at a crossroads. Those of us who have regular contact with the industry are well aware of people's concern.
For most of the past 40 years, the industry has been urged on by Governments, whatever their political hue, to increase home food production. The industry has responded, in terms of efficiency and productivity, when contributing to domestic food production. Such production made an important contribution during those years when we did not have the benefit of North sea oil to prop up our balance of payments.
The message to the industry is now different. Agriculture is clearly in transition. Governments and the public recognise the need to contain expenditure on the common agricultural policy. There has been control of production in commodities in the case of structural surpluses. Last year, the dairy industry had to go through a traumatic period of transition to accommodate the new quota system. Now cereal growers are uncertain about future moves to cut cereal production.
There are ever-increasing pressures on modern agriculture to take account of modern environmental interests. Those interests are quite proper, provided that those who push them remember that our rural areas are living regions. They are places in which people have been brought up and work and are not simply those parts of the countryside to which the urban dwellers retreat at weekends.
Generally, the National Farmers Union of Scotland has been responsive to these changes. It is clear from regular reading of press releases and the proceedings of the meetings of Scottish members with their officers that these new factors are in people's minds. If the industry is in a state of transition, we hope that the Government will be more responsive to its problems and more supportive of it. Last month when the Secretary of State attended the Royal Highland Show at Ingliston he said that the Government were the friend of the farmer, but many farmers to whom I have spoken say, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"
All hon. Members will have received representations from the National Farmers Union nationally and locally about the anxiety of the dairy industry at the rumours that quotas may be transferred from Scotland to Northern Ireland. Scotland's full allocation of almost 30 million litres under the outgoers scheme has been taken up. There is considerable anxiety that a further sum will be made available to fund outgoers, but that the quotas so released will not be retained in Scotland, but transferred to Ulster.
The Minister will be well aware of the opposition that that has generated. It is feared that such a scheme will represent the loss of what may rightly be described as a Scottish asset, and will generally undermine those still engaged in dairying in Scotland. Above all, it is feared that if we lose any more milk production, the viability of many local creameries will be threatened. While that is the general case for Scotland, I am not ashamed to say that it


is particularly true for the islands. Given the Under-Secretary's constituency, knowledge and background, he must share similar anxieties.
One must pay tribute where tribute is due, and the Government have acknowledged the particular problems faced by the islands. There was a lower percentage cut when the quota regime was introduced, and in the regulations laid before the House in March a specific provision was made for the allocation of outgoers quota in remote and island areas.
In some parts, such as Orkney where the creamery is highly dependent on sustaining a particular level of throughput, there is anxiety that, if there is further loss of production by individuals, that quota should remain within the islands. Certainly, if the Government are considering transferring quota to Northern Ireland, the entire Scottish industry will find it a bitter disappointment and will oppose it. Indeed, it has already voiced its opposition. It would be particularly grievous to the island economies if they lost any quota.
There has also been considerable consternation throughout the industry about the cut in capital grants. Initially a £5 million cut was announced last December, which was compounded by the announcement earlier this month of the new capital grant regulations. I am sure that the House does not need to be reminded that 87 per cent. of Scottish farms lie within less favoured areas. We use the term "less favoured areas" so often that we may forget what it means. They are less favoured because of the land, and for geographical and climatic reasons. The point of designating those areas as naturally less favoured is that they need more favour from Community and national agricultural support. Despite the high percentage of Scottish farms in less favoured areas, they have had to bear an equal, and some may argue a disproportionate, proportion of the cuts in agricultural spending. Field drainage grant support has been reduced within 12 months from 70 to 30 per cent. Farmers in those areas, especially hill farmers and livestock producers, are not contributing to structural surpluses and over-production. The grants which they seek were previously available at higher rates, for example for reseeding, field drainage and fencing, and are for works of necessary and routine maintenance. There is a great fear that, because of the cut in grant support, these very necessary investments will also be cut. That in the long term must spell danger, and it will be unsatisfactory in the context of future long-term prospects for agriculture.
These cuts come at a time when there is little buoyancy among the livestock producers in the less favoured areas. The annual review of agriculture published earlier this year examined income developments by farm type, and concluded that on hill and upland less-favoured area farms, there was a general fall in income in 1983–84 following a more pronounced drop in the previous year. That report added:
In 1984–85 incomes in these farms are expected to show some recovery, except in Scotland where a further fall is forecast".
Even though their own White Paper says that there is an expected fall in incomes, the Government nevertheless go ahead and cut the grants that were previously available.
I wish to make two detailed points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. As I understand the new provisions,

a farmer can no longer apply for ad hoc grants for such measures as reseeding, field drainage or fencing as was previously possible under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme.
I further understand that, having regard to the monetary limits under the new scheme — the agriculture improvement regulations — a farmer could make applications for assistance up to a limit of two in six years. But that would require the submission of an investment plan.
Given that in the last week the Government have been trumpeting about lifting the burden on small businesses, how can they justify this additional bureaucratic imposition on those who are seeking to do routine maintenance that previously they were able to do more easily because of the ad hoc grant system? 
Secondly, I wish to know the extent to which the reduced rates of grant might lead to reduced take-up. Investment plans will not now go ahead, because the money is not available to finance them. How does the level of take-up in April to June this year compare with the same period last year, when the grants were at the higher rate? Will the Minister look again at the rates of grant if it appears that during this financial year the savings to the Exchequer because of the cuts will exceed those that were budgeted for because of the lower rate of take-up? In the light of that, will he review the rate of grant?
Scottish agriculture is also concerned about the reduction in expenditure on the advisory services and research and development. That is a totally insensitive and illogical move at a time when agriculture is in transition. There are ever-increasing needs of the market to improve quality, as well as the need to reconcile farming interests with environmental concerns.
Much time has been spent in the House debating whether the rate of cutback in Scotland was the same as in England and Wales. The advisory services in Scotland do not always perform the same functions as those in England and Wales. But even if they are identical and we are comparing like services with like, that seems to ignore the fact that such a vast cut—41 per cent.—in one go must have a greater impact in Scotland, because of the greater area of Scottish agriculture that is part of less favoured areas, than in England and Wales.
Greater distances must be covered in parts of Scotland, and there is a need for advisory services in less favoured areas where agriculture faces difficulties caused by climate, geography and quality of the land. The great fear in constituencies such as mine is that, if funds are withdrawn or reduced, the type of services that will be cut —particularly for transport cost reasons—will be those to the outlying parts. As a result, the very necessary advice to those areas will be diminished. It was clear to my hon. Friends and me when we saw the Minister of State, the noble Lord Gray, that the sum of 41 per cent. referred to was not negotiable. Now we are debating where the cuts should fall. It is clear that there will have to be considerable rationalisation of the colleges of agriculture and the functions they perform.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I think my hon. Friend will recognise that, having half of the north of Scotland college of agriculture in my constituency, the point he has just raised is of considerable concern to me. That college is talking about the redundancy of 350 experienced specialist advisers who are needed and who will almost


certainly have to be re-recruited as and when the reorganisation has taken place. This decision seems to be wasteful of individuals as well as of a natural resource. Will my hon. Friend press on the Minister that, if he will not negotiate the 41 per cent., he must negotiate the timing —the speed with which the change is introduced—to avoid the redundancy and waste of time involved?

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has made a valid point and has stressed the point clearly himself; the Minister will have noted it. He underlines the point, in saying that this will lead to 350 redundancies, that the cuts do not make sense. Indeed, no matter how these cuts are made, clearly parts of Scottish agricultural research and development and our advisory and investigative services — all of which in their own way are vital—will be unacceptably cut. We have already had an Adjournment debate on the valuable work done by the Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering, and the fears that it has about a cut in expenditure on research and development.
From the point of view of my constituents, I am greatly concerned about the possible impact of the cuts on the veterinary investigation service, in particular the laboratory at Thurso, which does very valuable work. The veterinary surgeons in my constituency were full of praise for the work done and the service provided to the agricultural community in Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland. When the Rayner review looked into this matter in England — Scotland was excluded from its deliberations—it concluded that
the absence of a sophisticated diagnostic and investigational service would represent a serious loss to the industry as a whole. A laboratory based diagnostic service is necessary to support statutory disease eradication schemes and for the identification of new and emergency disease conditions. The private sector would not find it worthwhile to offer the full range of diagnostic and investigational services currently available from the Veterinary Investigation Service.
I can see no reason at all why a similar conclusion should not be applied to Scotland. We will create long-term problems for animal health and welfare if the future of institutions such as the Thurso laboratory and similar laboratories in Scotland is not safeguarded.
The cumulative effect of the cuts will be less assistance in areas where incomes are accepted by the Government to be falling. If investment help is down, that will force the farmers concerned more and more to increase their debt and to have to service debts. In addition, some funding will inevitably be required from the industry to support advisory services, funding from incomes that will be smaller anyway, and in some cases just not there.
How do the Government see the future of Scottish agriculture, when the cumulative effect of their policies are considered? I have no doubt that in his response the Minister will tell us how much the Government is spending on agricultural support in Scotland. One could ask how much would have been spent had these cuts not been made. It sounds almost like a great achievement by the Government that they have not actually cut out agricultural support altogether.
The Minister will also tell us of the increase in amounts payable for hill livestock compensatory allowances, increases which I acknowledge, in particular the supplement in the Highlands and Islands area. I have gone through the figures with NFU representatives in my

constituency. It is clear that, if one considers the interrelationship of the increases with the decreases in grants, there is no net benefit at all to the industry. In fact, it is worse off.
I should like to make a constituency point. The grades of land that are used for the payment of allowances in the Highlands and Islands area were based on classifications for winter keep and bear no relation to the problems caused through additional transport and fuel costs or the problems in the remoter parts of Scotland. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will accept that grade A land in Easter Ross is a slightly better proposition when it comes to things such as transport costs and accessibility to markets than grade A land in Orkney. We wish the Minister to reconsider the classifications to see whether they are fair and to ensure that the support is properly going where it is needed.
It is clear that agriculture in Scotland is important not only on its own terms but for the part that it plays in the whole rural economy. If one cuts grants, it is not just the farmer who suffers, but the small contractors who have been undertaking his fencing and drainage work. That has a pervasive effect throughout the rural community. It could put in jeopardy the rural school and other services.
We wish to see a total tun-1round in Government policy. Support should not be withdrawn. We should be looking forward to such things as an agriculture development programme for the Highlands and Islands, which seek to regenerate the rural economy. There have been signs in the past few weeks that the European Commission is anxious to talk to the Government about the matter. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will take a more positive approach than in the past. That would be welcome news, because the news over the past 12 months has not been of encouragement and support for Scottish agriculture.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on his good fortune in raising this important subject. I am grateful for this opportunity to register the strong feelings of the Labour party about the decay of rural Scotland in recent years and indeed about the Government's abject failure to give a proper lead in assisting the Scottish rural economy to come through this time of drastic change and great uncertainty, which everyone acknowledges to be the case.
Apart from agriculture, we have seen the impact of other aspects of Government policy on housing and transport, to name but two, in rural Scotland. the Government must stand condemned for that. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we need a proper rural development policy not only for the Highlands and Islands but for other rural parts of Scotland. That must include an agriculture policy.
I think that there is general agreement about the urgent need for a drastic review of the European common agricultural policy. However, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is clearly hopelessly out of his depth in addressing himself to the problems. In Scotland, we have the additional problem of having a Minister whom one can only describe as the invisible man responsible for the agriculture industry. In this instance, I am talking not only about the Secretary of State for Scotland himself, but about someone who is even more invisible—Lord Gray


of Contin. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) can tell us something about him because I have not seen him since he lost his seat at the last general election.
The Government have conveniently identified a case for cutting expenditure, which they are always keen on doing, and they are turning both their blind eyes to areas of Scottish agriculture and the Scottish rural economy that require extra incentives. Let me give a couple of examples. I start with one mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. There is a massive attack on the budgets of the Scottish agricultural colleges—a 41 per cent. cut over less than two years. That approach to the research and advisory organisations under present circumstances seems to us to be little short of criminal.
Those organisations can help the industry to adjust itself to the new climate of reduced production, increased emphasis on environmental issues and the general need for diversification and change. If anything, one might think that those colleges needed more resources, but the Government are hell-bent on cutting expenditure regardless of the consequences. We know what is happening to those colleges at present. It has been suggested that money to sustain research and advisory services could be raised from the industry. On the principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I suspect that the bigger farmers would be able to benefit from advisory services' research while smaller enterprises, which have the greatest need of it, might not.
Capital grants to agriculture in Scotland, as elsewhere, have been halved in three successive years. For redrainage of land on low ground, capital grant is now 15 per cent. That is not an adequate incentive, even under present circumstances, for vital capital improvement work. Quite apart from the impact that the cuts may have on agriculture, there is cause for acute concern about their disastrous effect on agricultural contractors, who are an important source of employment in rural areas.
We should pay special attention to the most fragile parts of the agricultural economy in Scotland—the hills and uplands. It is essential to sustain employment in those remoter areas. We should consider additional means of protecting existing enterprises in the remoter areas and of creating more smaller farms when possible. To give credit where credit is due, I must add that the Government have responded to pressure to maintain the hill livestock compensatory allowances and the beef and sheep variable premium. That general level of support must continue to guarantee the long-term future of hill livestock farming. I hope that all parties acknowledge that need.
As for the pig industry, we deplore the fact that the Government have refused to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture on the funding of the scheme to eradicate Aujeszky's disease. The Government's failure to underwrite the eradication scheme will make it much more difficult to institute voluntary eradication schemes for animal diseases in future.
The dairy industry will not forgive the Government for the shambolic manner in which production quotas were introduced last year and I do not understand why the Republic of Ireland is getting additional quota of 58,000 tonnes when there is a serious threat of badly needed

Scottish milk quota being transferred to Northern Ireland. We must press the Minister for a specific reply and an assurance that Scotland's milk quota will be protected.
We know that there are massive and costly surpluses of cereals in the European Community. We have the grotesque embarrassment of having huge carry-over stocks from last year's harvest still in intervention stores as we begin the 1985 harvest. That is a direct consequence of the distorting effects of the intervention buying system and the common agricultural policy in its present form. We require a massive overhaul of the CAP, not the timid tinkerings that we have had with cereals.
Savings must be made, and there is a need for urgent steps to reduce production and encourage alternative use for land. I suggest that the 1·8 per cent. reduction in prices being imposed by the Commission as a means of circumventing the veto put in by the Germans on the original agreement, will probably be worse than useless. Such a marginal cut in cereal prices is likely to be interpreted as an incentive to increase production, which must be the last thing that we should do.
If the Minister pursues his policy of cutting prices as the means of reducing the production of cereals, he will have to make much bigger cuts, and such substantial cuts could well lead to bankruptcies among smaller producers. That policy is unlikely to succeed. We need a combination of incentives to change patterns of production by the introduction of alternative crops. Price restraint is needed. We must also consider the introduction of quotas. I do not like the idea, but rather than being stampeded into the imposition of quotas, as happened over milk quotas, there should at least be contingency plans for a quota system for cereals.
I have referred to the need for incentives to change production patterns in the rural areas of Scotland. We must encourage people to stop producing commodities that are in surplus. The new agricultural improvement grants that were debated last week in Standing Committee included a new provision for grants and incentives to plant broadleaved shelter belts. During the debate in Committee I raised this point with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She reiterated the Government's refusal to implement article 20 of the European Community's structures directive which would have provided a very substantial incentive to plant broadleaved trees.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland said in a written reply that through the Forestry Commission he intended to institute a new planting grant scheme. At first sight this appears to be at least as attractive as the article 20 incentives proposal of the European Community. At least that will be the case for areas of up to three hectares. After that the article 20 incentives would be more generous. Why not implement article 20 in full? European Community cash could then be used to encourage the substantial planting of trees not only in the Highlands but on low ground. The extra planting of trees would not only improve the landscape; it could lead to a significant reduction in the production of cereals and other surplus crops and it would lead to an increase in the production of much needed timber.
There is an urgent need to restrain the production of surplus crops in the European Community. The hamfisted cuts in research and in general support for the industry are typical of this Government's approach, but they are wrong. We should redirect this budget towards


restructuring the industry. If savings can thereby be achieved, so much the better. However, our top priority should be the revitalisation of the Scottish rural economy. Scotland contains a high proportion of remote rural areas. Its special case demands special attention in the review of agricultural and rural policy. I fear that that may be too much to expect from this discredited and unrepresentative Government.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Conscious though I am of the time, I want to place just a one-minute contribution on the record before the Minister replies to the debate. I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on having been fortunate enough to introduce this debate and for the manner in which he did so. I fully endorse the thrust of his argument.
There is great concern in the Ross, Cromarty and Skye constituency and in the Highlands and Islands generally about the envisaged level of cuts in the capital grant scheme and in the agricultural, scientific, research and general support services. My hon. Friend said that it will have a severe impact upon those who farm in the less-favoured areas of the Highlands.
Secondly, an application has been sent from the Highland Regional Council to Lord Gray of Contin requesting 100 per cent. Scottish Office support for the necessary funding of the work that has to be done after the flooding of the River Conon just over a year ago. I hope the Government will seriously consider that request.
Thirdly, may I back up my hon. Friend's plea that there should be a full agricultural development programme for the Highlands of Scotland. Optimistic signals are coming from Europe. There is a clear indication that the European Commission wants to talk to the Scottish Office. I hope that it will respond constructively. It would go a long way towards reversing some of the indebtedness and general difficulty which the agricultural community in the Highlands is experiencing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on his first appearance as the Liberal party spokesman on agriculture in Scotland. In the time available to me, I doubt whether I can cover every point made, but I hope to cover the main ones.
At this early hour—it is almost mid-morning for a farmer—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman managed to slip his debate into the last of the 12 hours available. It gives me the opportunity to put on record the state and future of Scottish agriculture, and to re-emphasise the Government's excellent record of support to agriculture in Scotland. The industry is in reasonably good shape. Last year, net farm incomes increased by about 32 per cent. to £141 million. Although I am delighted with that improvement, we were careful to say when the figures were published that one should not read too much into single year-on-year comparisons. Many variable factors in agriculture, not least the weather, have a bearing on farm incomes. This year, the weather has been less than kind in many parts of the country.
Since we took office in 1979, the upward trend has become clear. We halted the decline in net farm incomes

which we inherited, and then reversed the trend to enable the industry's financial position to recover. The Government can legitimately take the credit for helping the industry to pull itself out of the trough, because we continue to inject large sums of public money into its support. In 1985–86, about £106 million will be paid in direct financial assistance to Scottish farmers. The 1978–79 equivalent was only £73 million. When one considers that, one realises that the remarks this morning of the Lib-Lab alliance were not well-founded.
I suspect that many farmers forget —perhaps some hon. Members have forgotten it, too — that Scotland benefits substantially from the £1·2 billion that is likely to be spent this year in supporting United Kingdom farm prices under the common agricultural policy. Scotland's share of the sum is difficult to quantify but, on the basis of a special exercise carried out in 1983–84, we can place it at about £135 million. Agriculture tends to forget that those sums are part and parcel of the Government's support for the industry. In addition, we spend about £50 million on research and development and education, which benefit agriculture, although less directly.
I am glad that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) mentioned forestry. The Forestry Commission estimates that about £27 million will be spent in Scotland in 1985–86. As my noble Friend Lord Gray noted at the annual general meeting of the Scottish NFU in March, Scottish agriculture now receives about £300 million a year in support. By any yardstick, that is considerable support from the Government and, ultimately, from the taxpayer.
Despite the difficult and protracted price-fixing negotiations this year, the outcome was good for farmers, as the Scottish NFU publicly acknowledged. It is never easy to secure all that we want in those negotiations, and this year was no exception. The continuation of the beef variable premium scheme was especially important to us, and that was certainly recognised by the NFU. The sheepmeat provisions are largely unchanged from previous years, thanks to significant negotiating achievements by the Government. We have resisted attempts to tinker with these schemes. I know that the producers were relieved at the splendid Government achievement in the negotiations.
The real disappointment this year was the failure of the Community to take the right course on cereals. As the House knows, the Germans blocked a proposal to cut cereal prices by 1·8 per cent., and even that proposal had to be seen as a rather weak compromise when related to the 5 per cent. cut due in the light of the Council's sensible 1984 decision on guarantee thresholds.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for East Lothian seemed to be more realistic in facing up to the problems that agriculture will face, and is facing from the problem of surpluses than the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He rather skidded over the problem of surplus production in the Community. not just on cereals but other products.
It might be interesting for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland if I read out to him what one one of his leaders said in a debate in January. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said—[Interruption.] I am glad that lion. Gentlemen are cheering the hon. Member. Perhaps it is the selection of leader that brings a cheer. He said:
It has been clear for the past five years that a continued open-ended system of agricultural support was bound to lead to


trouble, compounded by the seldom mentioned fact that the problem is not just open-ended production with the need for subsidy capping, as it were, but the rapid and expensive result of advances in agricultural technology, as the support system was devised without the expectation of full production or production in balance with demand."—[Official Report, 25 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 911.]
That simple truth does not seem to have penetrated to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, although the hon. Member for East Lothian has got the message, which is particularly relevant to cereals. In a report published by Agra Europe, published on 12 July 1985, it was said:
Budgetary costs could be trebled by what is a conservative forecast of cereals production of 154 million tonnes by 1990 if present trends in support prices and productivity improvements are permitted to continue. The Commission's own forecast is of a 163 million tonne harvest in 1990, which would mean over a 40 million tonne surplus. Even taking the more conservative figure of 154 million tonnes this would result in EEC support of at least £5,000 million in 1990, roughly 50 per cent. greater than the level which in the milk sector forced farm Ministers into the dairy quota scheme.
The surplus in cereals is a serious problem that we must face up to, and there was more recognition of that in the contribution from the hon. Member for East Lothian than in that from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The Scottish NFU was clear in all its representations to Ministers about milk quotas. They saw milk quotas as the way ahead. They have got that, and I pay tribute to them and to the Milk Marketing Board for the way we have managed to introduce milk quotas in Scotland, with the minimum trouble, although there are real problems with some milk quotas.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about milk quotas in Northern Ireland. I believe that he is to see my noble Friend later today, as is the president of the Scottish NFU. This matter is under discussion and I am not able to pre-empt the outcome of these discussions.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland recognised, the Government are anxious about the future of the small island communities, whose dairy base is dependent on the local creamery. We have looked after the dairy farmers on Islay, Bute, and Kintyre, South of Tarbert, which, for the purposes of the debate, is considered an island. Added on to that is Orkney and Shetland. The hon. Member will know that in Shetland the quotas were not cut last year and will be exempt from the 1 per cent. cut this year.
In Orkney, as in the islands of my constituency, my noble Friend has certainly given an assurance that the quota removed from the islands by the outgoers scheme will be returned this year. We are mindful not just of the needs of individual producers in these areas, but for the need for the cumulative amount of milk in the area to be able to sustain a viable creamery. We have certainly done that and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member acknowledge that fact.
Capital grants have been mentioned and the new grants scheme which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 8 July. The hon. Member expressed concern about the proposed rates of support and asked for them to be increased. It is extraordinarily easy for the hon. Gentleman to say that his party can promise more money here, there and everywhere, safe in the knowledge that it will never have to keep the promise which, if kept, would in any case mean higher taxes.
Of course the hon. Gentleman wants more help for his constituents, as we all do, but we also have to recognise that it is those same constituents who have to pay the extra tax, and they will not be too keen to do that. At a time of great pressure on public expenditure, we all have to cut our cloth accordingly, and the farming community understands that. The hon. Member has failed to look at some of the positive features of the new scheme. I stress that these are schemes which not only reflect the decisions of the Government, but stem from our obligations to implement community regulation 797/85.
Among the positive features, I include the proposal to introduce the new schemes on the basis of a clean slate. In other words, farmers will be allowed to spend up to the permitted ceiling regardless of the substantial support which many have received under the AHGS and AHDS schemes. From the representations made by many farmers in my constituency, I know this will be welcomed. Eligibility under the principal new scheme will be extended to small and part time farmers. Aid will be provided for craft and tourism projects in the less favoured areas, and this will permit farmers to augment and diversify their income.
Additional support will be provided for young farmers entering the industry. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to increase standard costs. These provide the basis on which grant is calculated where farmers undertake eligible projects using their own labour. These various measures coupled with general rates of grant of 30 per cent. and 15 per cent. demonstrate not only our continuing commitment to the farming industry, but, with the higher rates of grant — double that in the lowlands — the continuing priority which we are according to the less-favoured areas.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned plans. Compared with the previous FHDS scheme, the redevelopment plans will be much simpler and less onerous on farmers. I do not consider it unreasonable that farmers applying for grants paid for by the taxpayers should be required to place their applications in the context of a plan, and we are satisfied that two plans in six years will adequately accommodate all the worthwhile developments.
Hon. Members expressed concern about research and development and about the advisory services. As I said the other night, considerable changes are taking place in agriculture. I have mentioned some of them, and there will be more in future as we face the problem of surpluses. There is concern not only about surpluses, but about the environment and its interface with agriculture. There is also pressure to improve the welfare of farm animals, and considerable interest in the relationship between diet and health.
Against that background, it is essential that we review our strategy for research and development, assess the priorities, and see to it that the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is not unreasonable to expect the prime beneficiaries from the fruits of agricultural research and development to make a contribution towards its cost. My Department recently issued a consultation paper in relation to all this which was widely distributed and comments are now being considered.
We recognise the important work carried out by the college advisory service, but we take the view that farmers should make a contribution towards the cost of a service from which they benefit. Even after the reductions are


made, the majority of the money, the lion's share, will still come from the public purse. The colleges and the Department are consulting various interests, not least individual farmers. The Department will produce a consultation paper in the early autumn seeking reactions to proposals for implementing the changes which flow not simply from the decision to reduce public funding, but also from the reviews which go along with that.
Of course, I agree that less-favoured areas have particular needs and problems to which we must continue to have special regard. We shall certainly be doing that in all our consultations and considerations.

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Patient Referrals (Cumbernauld)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

9 am

Mr. Norman Hogg: This has been a long day, though for Parliament it is still Wednesday — a Westminster eccentricity which must bewilder the outside world. Those of us who have kept the watches of the night, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), will be relieved that we are at last reaching the end of the sitting.
It would be appropriate for me to place on record on behalf of hon. Members our appreciation of the staff of the House who, with diligence, patience and characteristic courtesy, have seen us through the past eighteen and a half hours.
I shall not detain the House for long, but I have to raise an important constituency matter that is worthy of the rime that remains. For a number of years, general practitioners in Cumbernauld new town have been concerned about patient referrals from the new town to hospitals administered by the eastern district of the Greater Glasgow health board and by the Lanarkshire health board.
The principle has always been that doctors used their clinical judgment to determine the best hospital for their patients' needs. That principle has come under increasing pressure because of the growth of the new town arid a reluctance by the Glasgow royal infirmary readily to accept emergency admissions. The important requirement for the GPs is that there should be clear and adequate provision both in Glasgow and at Monklands district general hospital. Other hospitals in Lanarkshire, such as Law and Hairmyers hospitals, are not well placed for access from the new town by public or private transport.
The matter came to a head in July 1982, when a Cumbernauld GP received a letter from the eastern district of the Greater Glasgow health board informing him that the substantially open-door policy would continue at the receiving physician's discretion until 5 pm and that at 5 pm or earlier, if there were eight beds or fewer vacant in the medical division, the receiving team would inform the district medical officer or his deputy of the position.
Such was the concern of the GPs that they called a meeting in February 1983 to discuss the future hospital care of Cumbernauld people in view of the reduction in the number of beds at Glasgow. Consultants at Glasgow felt that there would soon come a time when they would be unable to provide a hospital service for Cumbernauld if there were further reductions in the number of beds. Their colleagues from Monklands general hospital said that they could barely cope with the work load from Cumbernauld that they were receiving at that time and would be unable to cope with increased numbers.
The problem is that Monklands general hospital was not built large enough to cope with Cumbernauld's increasing population and cannot cope with more than the numbers that it takes now. If Glasgow stops taking patients, they will have to go to Law and Hairmyers hospitals with increasing frequency.
Doctors asked the chief medical officer for Scotland to their meeting because either Glasgow would have to change its policy of reducing the number of beds, and would have to be given money to provide a service for two


thirds of Cumbernauld's population or Monklands general hospital would be trying to cope with a demand which it was not large enough to satisfy.
The chairman of the Lanarkshire health board and the chief area medical officer were asked how they proposed to care for Cumbernauld's population. They replied that they hoped the situation would remain as it had been in the past. However, the Greater Glasgow health board was not prepared to let patients continue to have freedom of choice, and its cut in finances will affect Cumbernauld patients, who will find it increasingly difficult to get into Glasgow hospitals.
There are only two options for Lanarkshire health board in these circumstances. It either extends the Monklands district general hospital or zones Monklands not to accept patients from certain parts of Lanarkshire so that it can have more beds for Cumbernauld patients. As an alternative, Cumbernauld asks that it should be put into the Greater Glasgow health board area, which would mean that the responsibility for taking patients would be that of Glasgow. This would result in its getting more money, and not having to cut the number of beds that it is being forced to cut at present.
These questions were put to the chairmen of both boards, but it appears that the two chairmen failed to agree. Lanarkshire wrote on 19 September that any action that it took would be simply to take up the same stand that it had taken two years previously.
In theory, a complicated administrative procedure has been devised to keep the Monklands hospital doctor receiving the case informed where the patient may be accommodated. In practice, it never works out. In approximately 50 per cent. of medical cases, admission to Monklands hospital is simply refused. That is perhaps fortunate for the people of Cumbernauld, for the scheme as devised might mean admission to Hairmyers hospital or Law hospital. I stress that I am not criticising those hospitals. It is simply that it is not convenient for the people of Cumbernauld to go there. Only when all beds in Lanarkshire are full does the scheme envisage asking Glasgow royal infirmary for help.
Throughout the conduct of this issue, I have had meetings with the doctors. Their representatives and I have met the chairmen and officers of the two health boards. Although these meetings were useful in exploring the difficulties and determining the provisions which exist for my constituents, they did not successfully resolve the central question. In the event, I arranged a meeting with the Minister in an endeavour to obtain ministerial advice to the boards, on which it was hoped they would act so as to resolve the problem.
However, in the last letter which the Minister addressed to me, he merely reiterated that the problem of emergency referrals of Cumbernauld patients was essentially an operational matter for Lanarkshire health board to resolve, in discussion with the Greater Glasgow health board. The Minister stated that Dr. Thomson's letter of 19 September 1984 resolved the uncertainty which had prevailed to that date. He further claimed that the two boards concerned had now clarified the procedure to be followed.
The procedure is, of course, important, but it is not the central issue. The central issue is the capacity of Lanarkshire health board at Monklands general hospital to cope with Cumbernauld referrals, and the willingness and

ability of Glasgow royal infirmary to accept unselected referrals from the new town. This has been underlined by a case referred to the royal infirmary by a doctor from Cumbernauld, which was the subject of correspondence between him and that hospital in May this year. It is clear that, if additional cuts continue in Glasgow royal infirmary then, while it will be willing to accept normal gynaecological complaints, patients requiring termination will not be considered.
It is essential that the Minister resolve the matter between the two boards. I hope that he will feel able to say that funding will be such that patients have a choice of which hospital they wish to attend. I hope that he understands that, if the choice is not given, there will shortly come a time when there are insufficient beds for the care of patients from Cumbernauld.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr John MacKay): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), despite the unusual hour, for giving me this opportunity to discuss the particular problem about which he has spoken and to place on record the Government's position on some of the aspects of this issue which are of more general interest and application.
Perhaps it has also given the hon. Gentleman, depending on the decisions of the electorate for the Labour party, a chance to have a say in this House before he takes a vow of silence. But that is something over which Ministers have no control; it is in the hands of the electorate of the Labour party. I shall not say anything about the hon. Gentleman either for or against him in case it damages or even enhances his chances in that election.
However, I will say that the hon. Gentleman has certainly pursued this matter with me both by meetings and by writing and now in this debate.
I think that it is first of all important to establish clearly in a case such as this what are the respective roles of, on the one hand, the Scottish Home and Health Department and, on the other hand, the Health Boards, the Lanarkshire health board and the Greater Glasgow health board. As hon. Members know, the responsibilities of health boards are many and varied, but perhaps the principal reason for their existence is to plan for and provide patient services within the resources which the Government make available to them and in the light of their local requirements and priorities. That latter point is an important one for, provided that there are no national implications, it surely makes sense for the local provision of services to be under the management of a locally-based administrative organisation.
Responsibility for the day-to-day operation and provision of health care services rests with the health boards. In fulfilling that responsibility each health board must, of course, have regard to the requirements of the national policy as laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible for securing the effective provision of health services, as well as to the constraints necessarily imposed by the availability of resources, whether finance, manpower or indeed fixed assets such as buildings and equipment. In effect, the Secretary of State fulfils his overall responsibility for the provision of health services through the individual health boards in respect of their designated areas.
The fact that each health board is primarily responsible for providing health services to residents within its own area does not, however, mean that boards can afford to operate entirely independently of each other. While it may be a perfectly reasonable objective in terms of long-term planning for a board to devise its services with the needs of its resident population in mind, the pattern of existing services is to a great extent set by the sizes and locations of the hospital buildings actually available, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the travel network in the area. That can impose a very real constraint on the day-to-day provision of services. Where one board may have a deficiency of hospital beds, a neighbouring one may have a relative excess, and the logical solution in terms of achieving the best patient care within existing resources is for patients from the former area to cross the boundary into the second area for hospital treatment.
That is recognised in the operation of the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation mechanism, and this cross-boundary flow is compensated for in the financial allocations we make to the boards. It does not absolve the board from taking primary responsibility for all its residents, nor from devising a strategy for developing its existing services to cater for that resident population. But it does allow a practical solution to be reached where there are imbalances of supply and demand. In each case such a solution depends crucially, however, on the respective boards working together in close co-operation to achieve the best and most practicable service to meet the needs of their residents. Such co-operation is extremely important to the co-ordinated planning and provision of hospital services and I know that nearly all who work in the boards fully appreciate that.
The boundaries of a health hoard are therefore purely administrative in the sense that, subject to the availability of hospital resources, a patient in one area can be treated in another. It has long been held to be an essential freedom for the general practitioner to be able to decide as he thinks appropriate the best hospital to which to refer his patient. Health boards do their utmost to accommodate that, but the constraints of availability of hospital resources inevitably mean that that freedom cannot be entirely uninhibited. That is not to say that cross-boundary flow is undesirable, but that health boards, for reasons of practicality, may not in all cases be able to provide the full choice of options of hospital care which a general practitioner might ideally wish. Instead, and I am sure that the vast majority of them accept this, the options may be restricted. But the overriding principle of greatest importance is that wherever possible hospital care should be available somewhere with the minimum of delay and with the interests of the patient in mind. That must be the goal to which health boards must strive, and, although we will never be rid of waiting lists entirely. I am sure that boards are continuing to make important progress in that direction.
I turn from that general principle, which is important, on cross-boundary flow and the relationship between adjacent health boards to the particular case of Cumbernauld raised by the hon. Gentleman.
There has been a tradition for patients from Cumbernauld to be referred to Glasgow hospitals and, in particular, to the Glasgow Royal infirmary. Cumbernauld is, of course, in the area of the Lanarkshire health board and it was because of the needs of the Cumbernauld area,

as well as those of the Airdrie-Coatbridge area, that a new district general hospital in Airdrie, the Monklands DGH, was built.
Whereas previously there had been substantial cross-boundary flow from Cumbernauld to greater Glasgow, the position has changed somewhat. In 1976, some 88 per cent. of non-emergency, and 73 per cent. of emergency, acute patients from Cumbernauld were treated in Glasgow hospitals mostly at Glasgow Royal infirmary. Following the opening of Monklands DGH, however. these percentages have gradually fallen. The figures for 1982 were down to 72 per cent. for non-emergency cases and only 41 per cent. for emergency cases.
Part of the reason for the trend being gradual is that it takes time for GPs and patients to adjust their referral preferences and practices in the light of new hospital developments. It is inevitable that, for a time, people will continue to rely on the older hospitals. But it appears from the figures that the reputation of Monklands DGH among the people of Cumbernauld is growing. I am glad of that, for Monklands is an extremely efficient and well- run hospital, as I found when I visited it.
The hon. Member approached me about potential problems in the referral of Cumbernauld patients to Monklands in 1983 as he mentioned. We had a useful meeting at the beginning of 1984, when he explained to me that there were fears among the general practitioners in Cumbernauld that the capacity of Monklands to absorb more patients from Cumbernauld was now very limited but that there were signs from Greater Glasgow that they might not be in a position to continue to provide the existing level of service to Cumbernauld.
There was an even more pressing problem, as the hon. Member explained, namely, that Greater Glasgow was now unable to take emergency referrals from Cumbernauld, reversing previous practice, whereas Monklands, it was claimed. could not cope with the additional demand.
As I said at the time when we met, real as these problems were, they were essentially operational matters for the two health boards involved. I remain of that view. As I said, the responsibility for the operation and provision of health services locally lies with the health boards arid, provided that they are prepared to work together over common problems in providing those services, this is the best way to overcome them.
I placed emphasis earlier on the importance of cooperation and planning between health boards, and this case illustrates a good example of that. Following my meeting in January 1984 with the hon. Member, I arranged for the Lanarkshire and Greater Glasgow health boards to get together and address the two problem areas outlined, the one being the general admission of acute but non-emergency cases, the other being the specific issue of emergency cases where the situation was more difficult. I am glad to say that after the necessary discussions arid consultations, a solution was found by the boards to these problems.
Before I describe those solutions, I will comment on the question of the accident and emergency department at Monklands, which the hon. Gentleman raised in passing. This department has been under some pressure because of unforeseen demand, and the Lanarkshire health board is in the advanced stages of planning the building of an extension to the outpatients' department. The problem of the capacity of the department to deal with those who


attend it, largely instead of going to their general practitioners in the first instance, does not bear on the Cumbernauld problem, which is not one of self-referrals. The solution to the general question whether Greater Glasgow will be able to continue its present level of service to residents of Cumbernauld is bound up with Greater Glasgow's plans for future developments in its acute hospital services.
The Greater Glasgow health board is well aware of the financial pressures that it is likely to be under if it does not take steps to reduce its total provision of acute beds to match the rapid decline in the population of its area in recent years and the emergence of hospitals like Monklands outside the area of the Greater Glasgow health board. These hospitals are now taking up patients which traditionally went into Glasgow for their hospital care. These matters are under discussion between the board and my Department but the present assumption is that Glasgow will continue to accept and treat Cumbernauld residents.
In the discussions which followed my meeting with the hon. Member, the Greater Glasgow health board confirmed that despite the speculation to the contrary, it expected to be able to provide the present level of service to Cumbernauld for the foreseeable future. I am glad that the boards were able to clarify the situation in this way and to their mutual satisfaction.
The issue of emergency referrals was more difficult because the Greater Glasgow health board was unable to offer a return to the situation before 1980 when it accepted responsibility for emergency patients from Cumbernauld. Instead, however, Lanarkshire health board was able both to state that it now accepted this responsibility in the first instance itself and to reiterate established procedures which were designed to fulfil that responsibility. These procedures provide for Cumbernauld patients to be referred initially to Monklands DGH. Should there not be accommodation there for them, arrangements are immediately set in hand to find alternative accommodation elsewhere in Lanarkshire, which is primarily at the two large hospitals at Law and Hairmyres. Only in the unlikely event of no suitable bed being available in these main Lanarkshire hospitals is the Glasgow Royal infirmary approached when, with the full agreement of the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board, maximum help will be given. If the procedures are properly followed, the doctor who is looking for the bed should be doing a lot of

telephoning. The procedure should be undertaken by the Monklands DGH by keeping a note of the availability of emergency beds — that is something that every large hospital has to do in any event—whether or not it is receiving from Cumbernauld.
Once again, I should point out that these were operational solutions to an operational problem and were sorted out by the two health boards together. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in October 1984 to explain these solutions and, so far as I am aware, the procedures have operated to the satisfaction of both health boards and no problems have arisen.
I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has explained, namely, that the general practitioners in Cumbernauld may not be wholly convinced that this is the best service for their patients. It is not always possible to provide every GP with the facility to refer patients to whichever hospital he wishes. There are cases where, as here, the provision of an appropriate service depends on a clearly understood procedure to be followed.
I appreciate that GPs in Cumbernauld and their patients have historically looked to Glasgow, and especially to the Glasgow Royal infirmary, for their health care. However, Cumbernauld is within the Lanarkshire health board area and with the opening of Monklands district general hospital in 1977 the situation changed. The bulk of the non-emergency admissions are still made in the Glasgow Royal, although the proportion has reduced from 88 per cent. in 1976 to 72 per cent. in 1982. For emergency admissions, the proportion has declined from 73 per cent. in 1976 to 41 per cent. in 1982. Lanarkshire health board and Greater Glasgow health board have agreed procedures for Cumbernauld and this must be matched by a willingness on the part of the doctors to follow these agreed procedures. I believe that if that is done there should be no problems for the patients in Cumbernauld, whether they are treated in Monklands district general hospital or in the Glasgow Royal infirmary.
I am happy to reiterate that it has been made clear by the Greater Glasgow health board that despite some of the rumours, which the hon. Gentleman brought to my notice with the doctors he took to see me. it is prepared to say clearly that it is able to take patients from Cumbernauld for the foreseeable future as and when the need to do so arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock am on Thursday.